Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Values, errors, and precautions.

Herbert L Needleman1

  • 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. hlnlead@pitt.edu

International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
|June 24, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Erratum: "Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis".

Environmental health perspectives·2019
Same author

Prenatal lead levels, plasma amyloid β levels, and gene expression in young adulthood.

Environmental health perspectives·2012
Same author

Low-level environmental lead exposure in childhood and adult intellectual function: a follow-up study.

Environmental health : a global access science source·2011
Same author

The case of Deborah Rice: who is the Environmental Protection Agency protecting?

PLoS biology·2008
Same author

Past occupational exposure to lead: association between current blood lead and bone lead.

Archives of environmental & occupational health·2008
Same author

Mercury in dental amalgam--a neurotoxic risk?

JAMA·2006
Same journal

Bacteria and associated antibiotic resistance in air filter-derived biological material from utility vehicles at mechanical-biological treatment plants.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
Same journal

Tracking risk-taking behind the wheel: Which indicator of risky driving is the most useful in driving simulator studies? A pilot study.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
Same journal

Aspects of young employees' mental health: a narrative review.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
Same journal

Differences in work satisfaction among remote, hybrid, and on-site workers: the role of core self-evaluations and fulfilment of basic psychological needs.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
Same journal

Individual and occupational correlates of work ability of Polish employees with visual impairments.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
Same journal

Study of contaminants in natural cosmetics.

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health·2026
See all related articles

This paper identifies common errors in environmental health research interpretation, particularly Type II errors. It highlights issues like misinterpreting statistical significance and inadequate sample sizes, crucial for accurate scientific understanding.

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Health Sciences
  • Biostatistics
  • Epidemiology

Background:

  • Errors in interpreting environmental health studies are common.
  • Many of these errors are Type II statistical errors, leading to incorrect conclusions.
  • Understanding these pitfalls is essential for robust scientific research.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify and examine frequent errors in the interpretation of environmental health studies.
  • To provide a critical overview of common statistical and methodological misinterpretations.
  • To improve the accuracy and reliability of environmental health research findings.

Main Methods:

  • Qualitative analysis of common interpretation errors in environmental health literature.
  • Categorization of Type II errors based on published examples.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of specific fallacies in statistical and causal inference.

    • Main Results:

    • Frequent errors include: treating p < 0.05 as absolute, demanding perfect confounder control, and inferring no effect from small sample sizes.
    • Other identified errors involve phantom confounders, trivial effect sizes, non-veridical models, and inappropriate demands for causal proof.
    • Misinterpretation of study results can lead to flawed public health recommendations.

    Conclusions:

    • Awareness of these common interpretation errors is critical for researchers and reviewers.
    • Avoiding these pitfalls will enhance the validity and impact of environmental health research.
    • Promoting rigorous interpretation standards is necessary for advancing environmental health science.