Three statistical things that make everyday items look healthier (or at higher risk)

It is never easy to carry out scientific research, and in many cases there are major disasters along the way. Researchers accidentally spill coffee on the keyboard, destroying the data. Alternatively, one of the chemicals used in the analysis is contaminated and the list continues.

However, when you read the results of your research in a scientific paper, it always appears untouched. This study went smoothly without hiccups, and here are our results.

However, research may contain errors, not all, but rather errors, which independent experts and “peer reviewers” would weed before publication.

Statistical things can be difficult to find because they really need someone trained in statistics to realize something is wrong.

When statistical errors are discovered and discovered, they can have a significant impact on people who may have changed their lifestyles as a result of flawed research.

These three examples of careless statistical errors have had a major impact on our health and shopping habits.

1. Have you thrown away the black plastic spoon?

Late last year I came across a news article about how black plastic kitchen utensils are dangerous because they could potentially leak toxic flame-resistant chemicals to your food .

As a natural skeptic, I looked into the original papers published in the Journal Chemistry Sphere. This article looked authentic, the journal had good reviews. So, like most people probably, I dumped the black plastic kitchen utensils and replaced them with silicone ones.

In this study, the authors screened 203 household items (approximately half of them kitchenware) made from black plastic.

The authors discovered toxic flame retardants in 85% of the tested products, with levels approaching the largest daily limit set by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Unfortunately, the author made a mistake in the calculations. They’ve increased ten times. This meant that the levels of toxic chemicals were below daily safety limits.

Over the past few weeks, the author has apologised and revised it.

2. Have you avoided HRT?

A groundbreaking study has raised safety concerns regarding hormone replacement therapy or HRT (now known as menopause hormone therapy). This highlights different types of statistical errors.

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study included 10,739 postmenopausal women ages 50-79 from 40 clinical centers in the United States. It compared the health of women randomized to take HRT with women who took a placebo. Neither the researcher nor the woman knew which treatment was given.

In a 2002 paper, the authors reported a high rate of invasive breast cancer in the HRT group. They used a unit called “Person Years.” People’s Year is a way to measure the total amount of time a group of people spend on research. For example, if 100 people each study for a year, it would make 100 years. If someone leaves the trial after just six months, that six months will only count for them.

The authors showed a rate of invasive breast cancer of 38 people per 10,000 person-years in the HRT group compared to 30 people per 10,000 person-years in the placebo group. This gives you a rate ratio of 1.26 (dividing one rate by the other).

This rather large increase in breast cancer rates was also expressed as a 26% increase, causing widespread panic around the world, leading to thousands of women stopping HRT.

However, the actual risk of breast cancer in each group is low. The 38 percentage per 10,000 person-years corresponds to an annual rate of 0.38%. Because of the very low rates like these, authors should actually use rate differences rather than rate ratios. Rate differences are deducted from other rates rather than subtracting one rate from other rates. This corresponds to an annual increase in breast cancer cases of 0.08% in the HRT group. This is more modest.

The authors of the 2002 paper also noted that a 26% increase in breast cancer “has reached nominal statistical significance.” It is hardly statistically significant, and formally means there was no difference in breast cancer rates between the two groups. In other words, the difference between the two groups may have happened by chance.

The author should be more careful when describing the results.

3. Did Popeye’s spinach change your diet?

The cartoon character Popeye is a sailor who falls in love with willow olive oil and sucks a pipe with one eye. He is constantly in trouble, and when he needs extra energy, he opens a can of spinach and swallows the contents. His biceps quickly swell and he goes to sort through the issues.

But why does Popeye eat spinach?

The story begins around 1870 and begins in response to events read by German chemists Erich von Wolf or Emil von Wolf.

He was measuring the amount of iron on a variety of lush vegetables. According to some controversy, he wrote down the iron content of spinach in a notebook, making a mistake in decimal places, writing 35 milligrams instead of 3.5 milligrams per serving of 100 grams of spinach. The error was found and fixed in 1937.

By then, Popeye’s character had been created and spinach was extremely popular with children. Apparently, spinach consumption in the US has risen by a third as a result of cartoons.

The story has achieved legendary status, but it has one minor flaw. In a 1932 manga, Popeye explains exactly why he eats spinach. It has nothing to do with iron. He says in garbled English:

“Spinach is full of Vitamin A. An’tha makes Hoomans strong!”

This article will be republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Please read the original article.