The Big Ban on Bituminous Coal Sales Revisited: Serious Epidemics and Pronounced Trends Feign Excess Mortality Previously Attributed to Heavy Black-Smoke Exposure

Re-assessing human mortality risks attributed to PM2.5-mediated effects of agricultural ammonia

How can and should epidemiologists and risk assessors assemble and present evidence for causation of mortality or morbidities by identified agents such as fine particulate matter or other air pollutants? As a motivating example, some scientists have warned recently that ammonia from the production of meat significantly increases human mortality rates in exposed populations by increasing the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in air. We reexamine the support for such conclusions, including quantitative calculations that attribute deaths to PM2.5 air pollution by applying associational results such as relative risks, odds ratios, or slope coefficients from regression models to predict the effects on mortality or morbidity of reducing PM2.5 exposures. Taking an outside perspective from the field of causal artificial intelligence (CAI), we conclude that these attribution calculations are methodologically unsound. They produce unreliable conclusions because they ignore an essential distinction between differences in outcomes observed at different levels of exposure and changes in outcomes caused by changing exposure. We find that multiple studies that have examined associations between changes over time in particulate exposure and mortality risk instead of differences in exposures and corresponding mortality risks have found no clear evidence that observed changes in exposure help to predict or explain subsequent changes in mortality risks. We conclude that there is no sound theoretical or empirical reason to believe that reducing ammonia emissions from farms has reduced or would reduce human mortality risks. More generally, applying CAI principles and methods can potentially improve current widespread practices of unsound causal inferences and policy-relevant causal claims that are made without the benefit of formal causal analysis in air pollution health effects research and in other areas of applied epidemiology and public health risk assessment.

Modernizing the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causal relationships in observational data

Perhaps no other topic in risk analysis is more difficult, more controversial, or more important to risk management policy analysts and decision-makers than how to draw valid, correctly qualified causal conclusions from observational data. Statistical methods can readily quantify associations between observed variables using measures such as relative risk (RR) ratios, odds ratios (OR), slope coefficients for exposure or treatment variables in regression models, and quantities derived from these measures. Textbooks of epidemiology explain how to calculate population attributable fractions, attributable risks, burden-of-disease estimates, and probabilities of causation from relative risk (RR) ratios. Despite their suggestive names, these association-based measures have no necessary connection to causation if the associations on which they are based arise from bias, confounding, p-hacking, coincident historical trends, or other noncausal sources. But policy analysts and decision makers need something more: trustworthy predictions - and, later, evaluations - of the changes in outcomes caused by changes in policy variables. This concept of manipulative causation differs from the more familiar concepts of associational and attributive causation most widely used in epidemiology. Drawing on modern literature on causal discovery and inference principles and algorithms for drawing limited but useful causal conclusions from observational data, we propose seven criteria for assessing consistency of data with a manipulative causal exposure-response relationship - mutual information, directed dependence, internal and external consistency, coherent causal explanation of biological plausibility, causal mediation confirmation, and refutation of non-causal explanations - and discuss to what extent it is now possible to automate discovery of manipulative causal dependencies and quantification of causal effects from observational data. We compare our proposed principles for causal discovery and inference to the traditional Bradford Hill considerations from 1965. Understanding how old and new principles are related can clarify and enrich both.

Improving causal inferences in risk analysis

Recent headlines and scientific articles projecting significant human health benefits from changes in exposures too often depend on unvalidated subjective expert judgments and modeling assumptions, especially about the causal interpretation of statistical associations. Some of these assessments are demonstrably biased toward false positives and inflated effects estimates. More objective, data-driven methods of causal analysis are available to risk analysts. These can help to reduce bias and increase the credibility and realism of health effects risk assessments and causal claims. For example, quasi-experimental designs and analysis allow alternative (noncausal) explanations for associations to be tested, and refuted if appropriate. Panel data studies examine empirical relations between changes in hypothesized causes and effects. Intervention and change-point analyses identify effects (e.g., significant changes in health effects time series) and estimate their sizes. Granger causality tests, conditional independence tests, and counterfactual causality models test whether a hypothesized cause helps to predict its presumed effects, and quantify exposure-specific contributions to response rates in differently exposed groups, even in the presence of confounders. Causal graph models let causal mechanistic hypotheses be tested and refined using biomarker data. These methods can potentially revolutionize the study of exposure-induced health effects, helping to overcome pervasive false-positive biases and move the health risk assessment scientific community toward more accurate assessments of the impacts of exposures and interventions on public health.