Causality based on conflicting data

  • Thread starter Thread starter JakeA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Causality Data
JakeA
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
There's a common heart defect called a PFO, Patent Foreman Ovale.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pfo+stroke+risk&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=pfo+stroke+risk

It's thought to cause stroke and migraines in some people. 25% of the general population has a PFO, and 40% of people who have a had a cryptogenic stroke, one where the cause is unknown, have a PFO. The link between PFO and strokes is that a PFO will open a flap between the chambers of your heart periodically allowing venous blood clots that would otherwise be filtered through the lungs to go to your brain.

My question is what percentage of people who have a PFO and a cryptogenic stroke should be assumed to have it caused by the PFO?

At a minimum you could conclude that it's at least 37.5%, which is 15/40, the increment between the general population of 25% and the crypto stoke population of 40%.

The problem is that PFOs don't increase the risk of stroke for the general population, or at least don't do it significantly. The data is somewhat at conflict, I think because there are other risk factors for people with PFOs and strokes, i.e. you have to have something else that is pathogenic besides a PFO to be at increased risk of stroke.

But back to my question, what would you do with the other 62.5% of the people with PFO and stroke? Would you, in absence of any valid data take 50% and assume another increment of roughly 30%?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you did is statistically invalid. What you can do is ask whether the presence of PFO increases your risk of getting a cryptogenic stroke. By Bayes' Law,

P(\text{cryptogenic stroke}|\text{PFO}) =<br /> \frac {P(\text{PFO}|\text{cryptogenic stroke})\,P(\text{cryptogenic stroke})} {P(\text{PFO})}

where
  • P(\text{cryptogenic stroke}|\text{PFO}) is the probability of having a cryptogenic stroke given that one has PFO
  • P(\text{PFO}|\text{cryptogenic stroke}) is the probability that someone who has had a cryptogenic stroke also has PFO
  • P(\text{cryptogenic stroke}) is the probability of having a cryptogenic stroke by any cause
  • P(\text{PFO}) is the probability of having PFO.

Using P(\text{PFO}|\text{cryptogenic stroke})=0.4 and P(\text{PFO})=0.25 yields

P(\text{cryptogenic stroke}|\text{PFO}) = 1.6 \times P(\text{cryptogenic stroke})

In other words, people with PFO have a 60% increased chance of having a cryptogenic stroke than the population at large.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top