Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Aug;21(8):1272-81. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0276. Epub 2012 Jun 19.
Cancer epidemiology has been criticized for producing false-positive associations. The present analysis investigates the frequency of and factors contributing to false-positive findings in cancer epidemiology.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Group 3 agents were examined to identify potential false-positive findings. Frequency estimates for their occurrence were calculated. Comments of the Working Groups on study quality were recorded for studies with potential false-positives. These were used to determine how many of such studies were criticized for each of the study quality factors that are suspected to contribute to false-positive results.
Of 509 agents in group 3, 37 agents were found to have potential false-positive associations in the studies reviewed in their respective IARC monograph(s). The overall frequency of potential false-positives among these agents was between 0.03 and 0.10. The individual frequencies ranged from 0.01 to 0.40. The potential false-positive findings were produced by 162 studies. The most common factors contributing to potential false-positive findings were confounding and exposure misclassification.
The frequency estimates we have obtained do not suggest that epidemiology is grossly flooded by false-positive findings. The factors for which studies with potential false-positives were most often criticized were factors that are sometimes difficult to address in cancer epidemiologic research and can bias an effect estimate toward or away from the null.
The low frequency of false-positives in cancer epidemiology restores faith in epidemiologic procedures, making epidemiologic findings a useful guide for public health care measures.
癌症流行病学因产生假阳性关联而受到批评。本分析调查了癌症流行病学中假阳性发现的频率和促成因素。
检查了国际癌症研究机构（IARC）专论组 3 类试剂，以确定潜在的假阳性发现。计算了它们发生的频率估计值。记录了有潜在假阳性的研究中工作组对研究质量的评论。这些评论用于确定有多少此类研究因被怀疑导致假阳性结果的每个研究质量因素而受到批评。
在第 3 组的 509 种试剂中，在各自的 IARC 专论中审查的研究发现其中 37 种试剂具有潜在的假阳性关联。这些试剂中潜在假阳性的总体频率在 0.03 到 0.10 之间。个体频率范围从 0.01 到 0.40。潜在的假阳性发现是由 162 项研究产生的。导致潜在假阳性发现的最常见因素是混杂和暴露错误分类。
我们获得的频率估计值表明，流行病学并没有被大量的假阳性发现所淹没。对有潜在假阳性的研究最常批评的因素是在癌症流行病学研究中有时难以解决的因素，这些因素可能会使效应估计值偏向或远离零。
癌症流行病学中假阳性的低频率恢复了对流行病学程序的信心，使流行病学发现成为公共卫生保健措施的有用指南。
