This is the most essential and revealing discussion of statistics. Everything else is noise. The bottom: use relative risk when you are trying to "sell something." Anything. Products, drugs or statistical results. Real risk will never be quoted. This simple notion never seems to get any traction.
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 🙏
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.
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.
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
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.
'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 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!
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.
2:03 "18% of WHAT?"
2:50 "expected frequencies: what it means for 100 people" (absolute risk, AR).
This is the perfect video! Thankyou!
This is the most essential and revealing discussion of statistics. Everything else is noise. The bottom: use relative risk when you are trying to "sell something." Anything. Products, drugs or statistical results. Real risk will never be quoted. This simple notion never seems to get any traction.
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 🙏
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" 🤦🏼♂
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.
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.
Great explanation. Thank you!
Well done! Thank you!
I need you to come live with me and calm me the fuck down😂😂
Ha ha. Spiegelhalter is a legend, to calm down just listen or read most of his TV appearances or in the press.
Great examples!
much appreciated!
Excellent work.
Great. Now I understand.
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
thank you sir
Can you ple explain and compare the RR and OR together, I actually can differentiate between them in meaning 😢.
That is good to know.
Great video, thanks! The RealRisk link you provide in your notes no longer works. Could you update it? Or did you discontinue the tool?
Odd - should be fixed now!? The backslash seemed to be throwing it off...
Nice. Subscribed
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.
so absolute risk is over all prevalence
Yes, basically!
@@TheWintonCentre that is more intuitive. After taking biostat and and epidemiology your 4 minute video is more magic.
@@TheWintonCentre 0.18*6 =1.08, so the 6+1.08=7
@@TheWintonCentre Can we also use same calculations for odds ratio?
Enjoy your sandwich while others are scared of eating meats and proteins
I don't know anyone that's afraid of ingesting protein. Sounds like a contrived and vacuous point here.
What you think abt vaccine of corona
'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
@@TheWintonCentre I mean did you checked it's ARR???
@@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!
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.
@@TheWintonCentre no arr is efficacy compared to ppl who got vaccinated and placebo. And rrr is efficacy relative to other vac
Great video but please skip the bacon sandwich!!