2:03 "18% of WHAT?" 2:50 "expected frequencies: what it means for 100 people" (absolute risk, AR). This is the perfect video! Thankyou!

Absolutely beautiful explanation, thank you!

1% increase and the research was done using epidemiology / food frequency questionnaire.. But the media release goes "Bacon will kill you" 🤦🏼‍♂

Thank you so much Mr. David. This one helped a lot to comprehend the difference and the importance of communicating the same in a specified manner. Really helpful 🙏

much appreciated!

Great explanation. Thank you!

Well done! Thank you!

This was a really useful video - but one aspect that was missing, and I felt would have been really helpful to detail a bit more, was the actual calculation/formula's for context, but also to speak a bit more to the 'baseline risk' aspect. This seems a bit vague and I envisage is still not fully grasped by many. For example, in an epidemiology cohort study looking at say levels of physical activity (e.g. mins/day) and CVD events, you might compare different levels of activity (30, 60, 120 min/day) to a reference of say 0 or 10 mins/day using a cubic spline and computing hazard ratios (e.g. HR for 30 vs. 10 mins/day = HR 0.75, 60 vs. 10 = HR 0.50...). How would you then determine absolute risk(s) in this context for better interpretation? What is the 'unexposed' group here in order to determine 'baseline risk' and thus absolute risk? It's easy when thinking about a control vs. intervention group, but less so when thinking about a certain level of exposure relative to a chosen reference. I've had a look at RealRisk, but still feeling rather uncertain. Thanks so much in advance.

@javierr1755

Жыл бұрын

To answer your question: How would you then determine absolute risk(s) in this context for better interpretation? You would need to know the number of CVD events for your reference group. For example, if we know that a cohort (n=500) that only exercises 10 mins/day has a rate of 4 heart attacks per year, and the hazard ratio for 30 mins/day with respect to 10 mins/day is 0.75, then we expect to see only 25% of the reference rate of CVD, which is 1 heart attack per year. That is an absolute reduction of 3 heart attacks per year. Hope this helps.

Excellent work.

Great examples!

Great. Now I understand.

That is good to know.

Nice. Subscribed

Great video, thanks! The RealRisk link you provide in your notes no longer works. Could you update it? Or did you discontinue the tool?

@TheWintonCentre

Жыл бұрын

Odd - should be fixed now!? The backslash seemed to be throwing it off...

Can you ple explain and compare the RR and OR together, I actually can differentiate between them in meaning 😢.

Is Absolute risk the same as Attributable risk? In the First Aid textbook for the USMLE step one exam they only mentioned Attributable risk and Absolute risk reduction but there is no Absolute risk, thank you

I need you to come live with me and calm me the fuck down😂😂

@petejones8888

3 жыл бұрын

Ha ha. Spiegelhalter is a legend, to calm down just listen or read most of his TV appearances or in the press.

so absolute risk is over all prevalence

@TheWintonCentre

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, basically!

@somcana

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheWintonCentre that is more intuitive. After taking biostat and and epidemiology your 4 minute video is more magic.

@somcana

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheWintonCentre 0.18*6 =1.08, so the 6+1.08=7

@somcana

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheWintonCentre Can we also use same calculations for odds ratio?

What you think abt vaccine of corona

@TheWintonCentre

3 жыл бұрын

'I do feel it is for the good of our society that as many are vaccinated as possible.' www.standard.co.uk/comment/david-spiegelhalter-risks-benefits-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clots-b928717.html

@rallyworld3417

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheWintonCentre I mean did you checked it's ARR???

@TheWintonCentre

3 жыл бұрын

@@rallyworld3417 By ARR are you referring to 'absolute risk reduction'!? The most useful statistics for how much of a difference vaccines make are efficacy and effectiveness (slightly different!). Efficacy is the relative risk reduction in a trial, comparing the unvaccinated group with vaccinated group. Effectiveness is the same idea but in the real world, where conditions may be slightly different than in a trial. All the major vaccines have impressive efficacy & effectiveness, and have already saved many thousands of lives!

@TheWintonCentre

3 жыл бұрын

It's worth noting that vaccines are one area where relative risk reduction (i.e. their efficacy) are actually more useful and appropriate than absolute risk figures - because the relative reduction can be used across different contexts, while the absolute figure is specific to one context.

@rallyworld3417

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheWintonCentre no arr is efficacy compared to ppl who got vaccinated and placebo. And rrr is efficacy relative to other vac

There are go reasons why the industrialized pharmaceutical corporations use relative risk in the marketing campaigns and downplay absolute risk. Mostly it is because of perversion and greed. Surprisingly MDs like parroting drug companies marketing strategies. Sad really.

Enjoy your sandwich while others are scared of eating meats and proteins

@DrReginaldFinleySr

Жыл бұрын

I don't know anyone that's afraid of ingesting protein. Sounds like a contrived and vacuous point here.

Great video but please skip the bacon sandwich!!

I no longer believe anything you say. Fired….you have been bought and hopefully you will acknowledge this and leave public life.

@DrReginaldFinleySr

Жыл бұрын

Why? Because he is explaining basic statistics? I'm vegan, but he's right. Notice that he didn't promote eating extra bacon. He was just pointing out the personal health impacts. Of course, if he were to mention the actual numbers per million people that eat extra bacon and extra pork sandwiches, it would be intuitive but he is directly addressing the statistical differences between two often confused terms. Both figures are significant and to reduce overall risk, humans shouldn't be eating bacon anyway. Studies that look at vegetarians versus processed meat eaters of course reveal far more distribution between the means, but people that are already unhealthy show small gains in being more unhealthy over time. No surprise. Intervention studies are amazing in my view as they can quickly show changes in metabolism and overall health very quickly, lending credence to changing one's current diet, meat-based or otherwise.

@santyx_eorrr

5 ай бұрын

Ive always been curious - if carnivores think that every study showing meat is even a tiny bit bad for you is just funded by vegans and is untrustworthy, where do you get your information from? how do you trust any source out there? considering that every carnivore influencer is selling you a product and wants you to believe them as well?