Everyone loves dogs, so a study that found that dogs could lower your risk of schizophrenia has been Big News
Unfortunately, I'm here as The Science Grinch to ruin everyone's day
Dogs probably don't stop schizophrenia
pic.twitter.com/h6C1D62a7N
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
But then you look a little closer, and you realize that this is actually a CASE-CONTROL study, because the authors selected their patients based on outcomes (mental health diagnosis), not exposure (having pets)pic.twitter.com/DSqVa6SVLF
(Tip for non-epi people: the difference between a case-control and cohort can be hard to get at first, but just look at how they selected their participants. If they picked people based on their outcomes, it's case-control)
Ok, so it's a case-control being reported as a cohort study That's a problem, maybe, but not that much Let's look at the resultspic.twitter.com/0UWqXnAYrn
And this is where things get really, REALLY weird Compare this sentence in the results to the graph. Notice anything strange here?pic.twitter.com/gPsfY11Oa6
(Note: I'm not talking about how they used cross-sectional data to fudge longitudinal analyses. We'll get to that)
The sentence I highlighted above is just...wrong If that's the analysis they did, then they didn't show that "the time of the first household pet dog...was associated with a significantly decreased hazard of having a schizophrenia diagnosis"
This graph shows a Kaplan-Meier curve plotting the proportion who got a dog against the age that they reported getting one, by group It's testing whether people who are currently diagnosed with SP or BPD were more likely to get a dog as a child!pic.twitter.com/8TpWFUdsz3
In other words, the main finding of this paper, the one reported everywhere, is NOT that dogs reduce your risk of schizophrenia, it's that schizophrenia reduces your risk of dogs!pic.twitter.com/F3Bd14tNLP
Now, it's not the fault of the media that this was reported wrong - it's wrong IN THE PAPER This is perhaps not surprising, because there are quite a few other mistakes...
This sentence is statistically weird. If you're correcting for multiple comparisons (good) you can't just undo that by using the 'trend'pic.twitter.com/AiaTknBffm
The authors also report 'relative risks' even though they used logistic models You ~can~ convert the results of a logistic model to a relative risk, but it's not that easy and they didn't report doing so, which means the RRs are probably just ORspic.twitter.com/OB1QLZ7jJA
But all of this pales in comparison to the massive issue I skipped past earlier The study used longitudinal analysis (Cox/KM) to analyze cross-sectional datahttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1220462617472487425?s=20 …
You'd think from the results that they had monitored children over time, recorded when they got a pet, and then followed up years later to find out if they got a diagnosis But remember - this is a CASE-CONTROL study
What the authors actually did is ASK PEOPLE WITH A CURRENT DIAGNOSIS when they remembered getting a dog as a child This is an inherently flawed approachpic.twitter.com/Kwo4i0guDD
Imagine asking someone who is currently going through an inpatient admission for acute psychosis when they remember getting a dog as a child, and using that as your exposure variable You see the problem
So this study didn't even really measure whether people who were diagnosed with schizophrenia were more likely to get dogs as children It measured who was more likely to REMEMBER getting a dog as a childpic.twitter.com/9wIOr6YxN0
And using the time that they remembered having a dog as the time-point for a longitudinal analysis is...problematic For one thing, you don't have accurate pet death data. You don't actually know how long these people were exposed to pets!
I'm going to stop here, because while there's more there really isn't much point in going through it allpic.twitter.com/9ZPrh2WLfs
The fact that the analyses were the wrong way around, the exposure was a bit meaningless, and that the stats were probably misreported is probably enough And yet, the study was published, and got into the NYT *sigh*
TL:DR - dogs don't prevent schizophrenia - schizophrenia may prevent dogs - even then, probably not - this study is a mess
If you want more info, @statsepi and @ADAlthousePhD explain really well in this thread:https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1220015078726098944?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.