Advertisement

Coherence and Focused Hypotheses

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)

Abstract

The 1964 US Surgeon General’s report, Smoking and Health (Bayne-Jones et al. 1964, p. 20), lists five criteria for judgment about causality, the fifth being “the coherence of the association.” A single sentence defines coherence (Bayne-Jones et al. 1964, p. 185): “A final criterion for the appraisal of causal significance of an association is its coherence with known facts in the natural history and biology of the disease.” There follows a long discussion of the many ways in which the association between smoking and lung cancer is coherent. Per capita consumption of cigarettes had, at that time, been increasing, and the incidence of lung cancer was also increasing. Men, at that time, smoked much more than women and had a much higher incidence of lung cancer. And so on. To this, Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1965, p. 10) adds: “ ... I regard as greatly contributing to coherence the histopathological evidence from the bronchial epithelium of smokers and the isolation from cigarette smoke of factors carcinogenic for the skin of laboratory animals.” The pattern of associations in §1.2 between smoking and cardiovascular disease would also be described as coherent. Coherence is discussed by Susser (1973, pp. 154–162) and more critically by Rothman (1986, p. 19). MacMahon and Pugh 1970, p. 21) use the phrase “consonance with existing knowledge” in place of coherence. Coherence is related to Fisher’s “elaborate theory,” as discussed in §1.2.

Keywords

Partial Order Chromosome Aberration Mercury Level Rank Score Treated Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barlow, R., Bartholomew, D., Bremner, J., and Brunk, H. (1972). Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne-Jones, S., Burdette, W., Cochran, W., Farber, E., Fieser, L., Furth, J., Hickman, J., LeMaistre, C., Schuman, L., Seevers, M. (1964). Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.Google Scholar
  5. Hollander, M., Proschan, F., and Sethuraman, J. (1977). Functions decreasing in transposition and their applications in ranking problems. Annals of Statistics, 5, 722–733.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. (1973). Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonckheere, A. (1954). A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika, 41, 133–145.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Maclure, M. and Greenland, S. (1992). Tests for trend and dose-response: Misinterpretations and alternatives. American Journal of Epidemiology, 135, 96–104.Google Scholar
  9. MacMahon, B. and Pugh, T. (1970). Epidemiology: Principles and Methods. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  10. Mann, H. and Whitney, D. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mantel, N. (1967). Ranking procedures for arbitrarily restricted observations. Biometrics, 23, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Page, E. (1963). Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: A significance test for linear ranks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 216–230.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Popper, K. (1965). Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson, T., Wright, F.T., and Dykstra, R.L. (1988). Order Restricted Statistical Inference. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1991). Some poset statistics. Annals of Statistics, 19, 1091–1097.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1994). Coherence in observational studies. Biometrics, 50, 368–374.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rothman, K. (1986). Modern Epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Skerfving, S., Hansson, K., Mangs, C., Lindsten, J., and Ryman, N. (1974). Methylmercury-induced chromosome damage in man. Environmental Research, 7, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Susser, M. (1973). Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, 1, 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations