Ferres Juan Lavista, Nasir Md, Bijral Avleen, Subramanian S V, Weeks William B
AI for Good Lab, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA.
Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA.
Arch Public Health. 2023 Jul 26;81(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01156-6.
In 1991, Halpern and Coren claimed that left-handed people die nine years younger than right-handed people. Most subsequent studies did not find support for the difference in age of death or its magnitude, primarily because of the realization that there have been historical changes in reported rates of left-handedness.
We created a model that allowed us to determine whether the historical change in left-handedness explains the original finding of a nine-year difference in life expectancy. We calculated all deaths in the United States by birth year, gender, and handedness for 1989 (the Halpern and Coren study was based on data from that year) and contrasted those findings with the modeled age of death by reported and counterfactual estimated handedness for each birth year, 1900-1989.
In 1989, 2,019,512 individuals died, of which 6.4% were reportedly left-handed based on concurrent annual handedness reporting. However, it is widely believed that cultural pressures may have caused an underestimation of the true rate of left-handedness. Using a simulation that assumed no age of death difference between left-handed and right-handed individuals in this cohort and adjusting for the reported rates of left-handedness, we found that left-handed individuals were expected to die 9.3 years earlier than their right-handed counterparts due to changes in the rate of left-handedness over time. This difference of 9.3 years was not found to be statistically significant compared to the 8.97 years reported by Halpern and Coren. When we assumed no change in the rate of left-handedness over time, the survival advantage for right-handed individuals was reduced to 0.02 years, solely driven by not controlling for gender. When we considered the estimated age of death for each birth cohort, we found a mean difference of 0.43 years between left-handed and right-handed individuals, also driven by handedness difference by gender.
We found that the changing rate of left-handedness reporting over the years entirely explains the originally reported observation of nine-year difference in life expectancy. In epidemiology, new information on past reporting biases could warrant re-exploration of initial findings. The simulation modeling approach that we use here might facilitate such analyses.
1991年,哈尔彭和科伦声称左撇子比右撇子早死九年。随后的大多数研究并未找到支持死亡年龄差异或其幅度的证据,主要是因为人们意识到报告的左撇子发生率在历史上发生了变化。
我们创建了一个模型,通过该模型可以确定左撇子发生率的历史变化是否能解释最初发现的预期寿命相差九年这一现象。我们计算了1989年美国按出生年份、性别和用手习惯划分的所有死亡人数(哈尔彭和科伦的研究基于该年份的数据),并将这些结果与根据1900 - 1989年每个出生年份报告的和反事实估计的用手习惯所模拟的死亡年龄进行对比。
1989年,有2,019,512人死亡,根据当年的年度用手习惯报告,其中6.4%的人据报道为左撇子。然而,人们普遍认为文化压力可能导致了对左撇子真实发生率的低估。通过模拟假设该队列中左撇子和右撇子在死亡年龄上没有差异,并根据报告的左撇子发生率进行调整,我们发现由于左撇子发生率随时间的变化,左撇子预计比右撇子早死9.3年。与哈尔彭和科伦报告的8.97年相比,9.3年的差异未被发现具有统计学意义。当我们假设左撇子发生率随时间没有变化时,右撇子的生存优势仅因未控制性别而降至0.02年。当我们考虑每个出生队列的估计死亡年龄时,我们发现左撇子和右撇子之间的平均差异为0.43年,这也是由性别用手习惯差异导致的。
我们发现多年来左撇子报告率的变化完全解释了最初报告的预期寿命相差九年的观察结果。在流行病学中,关于过去报告偏差的新信息可能需要对最初的发现进行重新探索。我们在此使用的模拟建模方法可能有助于此类分析。