|
|
||||||||
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90290-3434, USA.
Epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and health physicists frequently serve as expert consultants to lawyers, courts, and administrators. One of the most common errors committed by experts is to equate, without qualification, the attributable fraction estimated from epidemiologic data to the probability of causation requested by courts and administrators. This error has become so pervasive that it has been incorporated into judicial precedents and legislation. This commentary provides a brief overview of the error and the context in which it arises.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Allard and J.-F. Boivin Using causal models to show the effect of untestable assumptions on effect estimates in randomized controlled trials Clinical Trials, December 1, 2007; 4(6): 611 - 620. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Greenland Model-based Estimation of Relative Risks and Other Epidemiologic Measures in Studies of Common Outcomes and in Case-Control Studies Am. J. Epidemiol., August 15, 2004; 160(4): 301 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |