Joseph K McLaughlin1, Robert E Tarone. 1. International Epidemiology Institute, 1455 Research Boulevard, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. jkm@iei.us
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent attempt to estimate the false-positive rate for cancer epidemiology studies is based on agents in International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) category 3 (agent not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans) in the IARC Monographs Program. METHODS: The estimation method is critiqued regarding biases caused by its reliance on the IARC classification criteria for assessing carcinogenic potential. RESULTS: The privileged position given to epidemiologic studies by the IARC criteria ensures that the percentage of positive epidemiologic studies for an agent will depend strongly on the IARC category to which the agent is assigned. Because IARC category 3 is composed of agents with the lowest-assessed carcinogenic potential to which the estimation approach in question could be applied, a spuriously low estimated false-positive rate was necessarily the outcome of this approach. CONCLUSIONS: Tendentious estimation approaches like that employed will by necessity produce spuriously low and misleading false positive rates. IMPACT: The recently reported estimates of the false-positive rate in cancer epidemiology are seriously biased and contribute nothing substantive to the literature on the very real problems related to false-positive findings in epidemiology.
BACKGROUND: A recent attempt to estimate the false-positive rate for cancer epidemiology studies is based on agents in International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) category 3 (agent not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans) in the IARC Monographs Program. METHODS: The estimation method is critiqued regarding biases caused by its reliance on the IARC classification criteria for assessing carcinogenic potential. RESULTS: The privileged position given to epidemiologic studies by the IARC criteria ensures that the percentage of positive epidemiologic studies for an agent will depend strongly on the IARC category to which the agent is assigned. Because IARC category 3 is composed of agents with the lowest-assessed carcinogenic potential to which the estimation approach in question could be applied, a spuriously low estimated false-positive rate was necessarily the outcome of this approach. CONCLUSIONS: Tendentious estimation approaches like that employed will by necessity produce spuriously low and misleading false positive rates. IMPACT: The recently reported estimates of the false-positive rate in cancer epidemiology are seriously biased and contribute nothing substantive to the literature on the very real problems related to false-positive findings in epidemiology.
Authors: Neil Pearce; Aaron Blair; Paolo Vineis; Wolfgang Ahrens; Aage Andersen; Josep M Anto; Bruce K Armstrong; Andrea A Baccarelli; Frederick A Beland; Amy Berrington; Pier Alberto Bertazzi; Linda S Birnbaum; Ross C Brownson; John R Bucher; Kenneth P Cantor; Elisabeth Cardis; John W Cherrie; David C Christiani; Pierluigi Cocco; David Coggon; Pietro Comba; Paul A Demers; John M Dement; Jeroen Douwes; Ellen A Eisen; Lawrence S Engel; Richard A Fenske; Lora E Fleming; Tony Fletcher; Elizabeth Fontham; Francesco Forastiere; Rainer Frentzel-Beyme; Lin Fritschi; Michel Gerin; Marcel Goldberg; Philippe Grandjean; Tom K Grimsrud; Per Gustavsson; Andy Haines; Patricia Hartge; Johnni Hansen; Michael Hauptmann; Dick Heederik; Kari Hemminki; Denis Hemon; Irva Hertz-Picciotto; Jane A Hoppin; James Huff; Bengt Jarvholm; Daehee Kang; Margaret R Karagas; Kristina Kjaerheim; Helge Kjuus; Manolis Kogevinas; David Kriebel; Petter Kristensen; Hans Kromhout; Francine Laden; Pierre Lebailly; Grace LeMasters; Jay H Lubin; Charles F Lynch; Elsebeth Lynge; Andrea 't Mannetje; Anthony J McMichael; John R McLaughlin; Loraine Marrett; Marco Martuzzi; James A Merchant; Enzo Merler; Franco Merletti; Anthony Miller; Franklin E Mirer; Richard Monson; Karl-Cristian Nordby; Andrew F Olshan; Marie-Elise Parent; Frederica P Perera; Melissa J Perry; Angela Cecilia Pesatori; Roberta Pirastu; Miquel Porta; Eero Pukkala; Carol Rice; David B Richardson; Leonard Ritter; Beate Ritz; Cecile M Ronckers; Lesley Rushton; Jennifer A Rusiecki; Ivan Rusyn; Jonathan M Samet; Dale P Sandler; Silvia de Sanjose; Eva Schernhammer; Adele Seniori Costantini; Noah Seixas; Carl Shy; Jack Siemiatycki; Debra T Silverman; Lorenzo Simonato; Allan H Smith; Martyn T Smith; John J Spinelli; Margaret R Spitz; Lorann Stallones; Leslie T Stayner; Kyle Steenland; Mark Stenzel; Bernard W Stewart; Patricia A Stewart; Elaine Symanski; Benedetto Terracini; Paige E Tolbert; Harri Vainio; John Vena; Roel Vermeulen; Cesar G Victora; Elizabeth M Ward; Clarice R Weinberg; Dennis Weisenburger; Catharina Wesseling; Elisabete Weiderpass; Shelia Hoar Zahm Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 9.031