TedTest

From the Ted Talk by David Schwartz: Not all scientific studies are created equal

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Studies have sohwn that taking vtimians is good for your health and bad for your health. That newly discovered herb can improve your memory or destroy your liver. Headlines poiaclrm a promising new cancer treatment and never mention it again. On a daily basis, we are bombarded with attention-grabbing news, backed up by scientific studies, but what are these studies? How are they performed? And how do we know whether they're reliable? When it comes to dietary or medical iaitroomfnn, the first thing to remember is that while seitdus on animals or iddvaniiul cells can point the way towards further research, the only way to know how something will affect hanmus is through a study involving human subjects. And when it comes to human studies, the scientific gold standard is the rmoznaiedd clinical trial, or RCT. The key to RCTs is that the subjects are randomly assigned to their study groups. They are often blinded to make them more rigorous. This process attempts to ensure that the only difference between the groups is the one the rcehrraeses are attempting to study. For example, when testing a new headache medication, a large pool of people with headaches would be randomly divided into two gopurs, one receiving the medication and another receiving a placebo. With proper randomization, the only significant overall difference between the two groups will be whether or not they received the meicioadtn, rather than other differences that could affect results. Randomized clinical trials are incredible tolos, and, in fact, the US Food and Drug aiiaotdinmstrn often requires at least two to be conducted before a new drug can be mekreatd. But the problem is that an RCT is not possible in many cases, either because it's not practical or would require too many volunteers. In such cases, scientists use an elmaiedipicogol study, which simply observes peploe going about their usual behavior, rather than randomly assigning active participants to ctronol invariable groups. Let's say we wanted to study whether an haerbl ingredient on the market causes nausea. Rather than deliberately giving people something that might make them nauseated, we would find those who already take the ingredient in their everyday lives. This gurop is called the cohort. We would also need a caoosirmpn group of people who do not have exposure to the ingredient. And we would then compare statistics. If the rate of nausea is higher in the herbal cohort, it suggests an association between the herbal supplement and nausea. Epidemiological studies are garet tools to stduy the health effects of almost anything, without directly interfering in people's lives or assigning them to potentially dangerous exposures. So, why can't we rely on these studies to establish cauasl relationships between substances and their effects on health? The problem is that even the best conducted epidemiological studies have inherent flaws. Precisely because the test sbeujtcs are not randomly ansgised to their groups. For example, if the cohort in our herbal study cnsiesotd of people who took the supplement for health reasons, they may have already had higher rates of nausea than the other people in the sample. Or the cohort group could've been coomepsd of people who shop at health food stores and have different diets or better access to healthcare. These frocats that can affect results, in addition to the factor being studied, are known as confounding variables. These two major pitfalls, combined with more general dangers, such as cliofncts of irtneest or sleteicve use of data, can make the findings of any particular epidemiological study suspect, and a good study must go out of its way to prove that its authors have taken steps to eliminate these types of errors. But even when this has been done, the very nature of epidemiological studies, which examine differences between periistnxeg groups, rather than deliberately inducing changes within the same individuals, means that a single study can only demonstrate a correlation between a substance and a haelth omoucte, rather than a true cause and effect relationship. At the end of the day, epidemiological studies have served as excellent guides to piublc health, alerting us to critical health hazards, such as smoking, asbestos, lead, and many more. But these were donestmreatd through multiple, well-conducted epidemiological studies, all ptininog in the same direction. So, the next time you see a hniedale about a new miracle cure or the terrible danger posed by an everyday scbantsue, try to learn more about the original study and the limitations inherent in any epidemiological study or clinical trial before jumping to conclusions.

Open Cloze

Studies have _____ that taking ________ is good for your health and bad for your health. That newly discovered herb can improve your memory or destroy your liver. Headlines ________ a promising new cancer treatment and never mention it again. On a daily basis, we are bombarded with attention-grabbing news, backed up by scientific studies, but what are these studies? How are they performed? And how do we know whether they're reliable? When it comes to dietary or medical ___________, the first thing to remember is that while _______ on animals or __________ cells can point the way towards further research, the only way to know how something will affect ______ is through a study involving human subjects. And when it comes to human studies, the scientific gold standard is the __________ clinical trial, or RCT. The key to RCTs is that the subjects are randomly assigned to their study groups. They are often blinded to make them more rigorous. This process attempts to ensure that the only difference between the groups is the one the ___________ are attempting to study. For example, when testing a new headache medication, a large pool of people with headaches would be randomly divided into two ______, one receiving the medication and another receiving a placebo. With proper randomization, the only significant overall difference between the two groups will be whether or not they received the __________, rather than other differences that could affect results. Randomized clinical trials are incredible _____, and, in fact, the US Food and Drug ______________ often requires at least two to be conducted before a new drug can be ________. But the problem is that an RCT is not possible in many cases, either because it's not practical or would require too many volunteers. In such cases, scientists use an _______________ study, which simply observes ______ going about their usual behavior, rather than randomly assigning active participants to _______ invariable groups. Let's say we wanted to study whether an ______ ingredient on the market causes nausea. Rather than deliberately giving people something that might make them nauseated, we would find those who already take the ingredient in their everyday lives. This _____ is called the cohort. We would also need a __________ group of people who do not have exposure to the ingredient. And we would then compare statistics. If the rate of nausea is higher in the herbal cohort, it suggests an association between the herbal supplement and nausea. Epidemiological studies are _____ tools to _____ the health effects of almost anything, without directly interfering in people's lives or assigning them to potentially dangerous exposures. So, why can't we rely on these studies to establish ______ relationships between substances and their effects on health? The problem is that even the best conducted epidemiological studies have inherent flaws. Precisely because the test ________ are not randomly ________ to their groups. For example, if the cohort in our herbal study _________ of people who took the supplement for health reasons, they may have already had higher rates of nausea than the other people in the sample. Or the cohort group could've been ________ of people who shop at health food stores and have different diets or better access to healthcare. These _______ that can affect results, in addition to the factor being studied, are known as confounding variables. These two major pitfalls, combined with more general dangers, such as _________ of ________ or _________ use of data, can make the findings of any particular epidemiological study suspect, and a good study must go out of its way to prove that its authors have taken steps to eliminate these types of errors. But even when this has been done, the very nature of epidemiological studies, which examine differences between ___________ groups, rather than deliberately inducing changes within the same individuals, means that a single study can only demonstrate a correlation between a substance and a ______ _______, rather than a true cause and effect relationship. At the end of the day, epidemiological studies have served as excellent guides to ______ health, alerting us to critical health hazards, such as smoking, asbestos, lead, and many more. But these were ____________ through multiple, well-conducted epidemiological studies, all ________ in the same direction. So, the next time you see a ________ about a new miracle cure or the terrible danger posed by an everyday _________, try to learn more about the original study and the limitations inherent in any epidemiological study or clinical trial before jumping to conclusions.

Solution

epidemiological
selective
people
medication
outcome
herbal
shown
headline
marketed
demonstrated
researchers
group
studies
humans
interest
health
study
randomized
conflicts
public
factors
tools
information
composed
administration
control
groups
vitamins
causal
substance
great
preexisting
comparison
subjects
assigned
pointing
individual
proclaim
consisted

Original Text

Studies have shown that taking vitamins is good for your health and bad for your health. That newly discovered herb can improve your memory or destroy your liver. Headlines proclaim a promising new cancer treatment and never mention it again. On a daily basis, we are bombarded with attention-grabbing news, backed up by scientific studies, but what are these studies? How are they performed? And how do we know whether they're reliable? When it comes to dietary or medical information, the first thing to remember is that while studies on animals or individual cells can point the way towards further research, the only way to know how something will affect humans is through a study involving human subjects. And when it comes to human studies, the scientific gold standard is the randomized clinical trial, or RCT. The key to RCTs is that the subjects are randomly assigned to their study groups. They are often blinded to make them more rigorous. This process attempts to ensure that the only difference between the groups is the one the researchers are attempting to study. For example, when testing a new headache medication, a large pool of people with headaches would be randomly divided into two groups, one receiving the medication and another receiving a placebo. With proper randomization, the only significant overall difference between the two groups will be whether or not they received the medication, rather than other differences that could affect results. Randomized clinical trials are incredible tools, and, in fact, the US Food and Drug Administration often requires at least two to be conducted before a new drug can be marketed. But the problem is that an RCT is not possible in many cases, either because it's not practical or would require too many volunteers. In such cases, scientists use an epidemiological study, which simply observes people going about their usual behavior, rather than randomly assigning active participants to control invariable groups. Let's say we wanted to study whether an herbal ingredient on the market causes nausea. Rather than deliberately giving people something that might make them nauseated, we would find those who already take the ingredient in their everyday lives. This group is called the cohort. We would also need a comparison group of people who do not have exposure to the ingredient. And we would then compare statistics. If the rate of nausea is higher in the herbal cohort, it suggests an association between the herbal supplement and nausea. Epidemiological studies are great tools to study the health effects of almost anything, without directly interfering in people's lives or assigning them to potentially dangerous exposures. So, why can't we rely on these studies to establish causal relationships between substances and their effects on health? The problem is that even the best conducted epidemiological studies have inherent flaws. Precisely because the test subjects are not randomly assigned to their groups. For example, if the cohort in our herbal study consisted of people who took the supplement for health reasons, they may have already had higher rates of nausea than the other people in the sample. Or the cohort group could've been composed of people who shop at health food stores and have different diets or better access to healthcare. These factors that can affect results, in addition to the factor being studied, are known as confounding variables. These two major pitfalls, combined with more general dangers, such as conflicts of interest or selective use of data, can make the findings of any particular epidemiological study suspect, and a good study must go out of its way to prove that its authors have taken steps to eliminate these types of errors. But even when this has been done, the very nature of epidemiological studies, which examine differences between preexisting groups, rather than deliberately inducing changes within the same individuals, means that a single study can only demonstrate a correlation between a substance and a health outcome, rather than a true cause and effect relationship. At the end of the day, epidemiological studies have served as excellent guides to public health, alerting us to critical health hazards, such as smoking, asbestos, lead, and many more. But these were demonstrated through multiple, well-conducted epidemiological studies, all pointing in the same direction. So, the next time you see a headline about a new miracle cure or the terrible danger posed by an everyday substance, try to learn more about the original study and the limitations inherent in any epidemiological study or clinical trial before jumping to conclusions.

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
epidemiological studies	3
randomized clinical	2
randomly assigned	2
epidemiological study	2

Important Words

access
active
addition
administration
affect
alerting
animals
asbestos
assigned
assigning
association
attempting
attempts
authors
backed
bad
basis
behavior
blinded
bombarded
called
cancer
cases
causal
cells
clinical
cohort
combined
compare
comparison
composed
conclusions
conducted
conflicts
confounding
consisted
control
correlation
critical
cure
daily
danger
dangerous
dangers
data
day
deliberately
demonstrate
demonstrated
destroy
dietary
diets
difference
differences
direction
discovered
divided
drug
effect
effects
eliminate
ensure
epidemiological
errors
establish
everyday
examine
excellent
exposure
exposures
fact
factor
factors
find
findings
flaws
food
general
giving
gold
good
great
group
groups
guides
hazards
headache
headaches
headline
headlines
health
healthcare
herb
herbal
higher
human
humans
improve
incredible
individual
individuals
inducing
information
ingredient
inherent
interest
interfering
invariable
involving
jumping
key
large
lead
learn
limitations
liver
lives
major
market
marketed
means
medical
medication
memory
mention
miracle
multiple
nature
nausea
nauseated
newly
news
observes
original
outcome
participants
people
performed
pitfalls
placebo
point
pointing
pool
posed
potentially
practical
precisely
preexisting
problem
process
proclaim
promising
proper
prove
public
randomization
randomized
randomly
rate
rates
rct
rcts
reasons
received
receiving
relationship
relationships
reliable
rely
remember
require
requires
research
researchers
results
rigorous
sample
scientific
scientists
selective
served
shop
shown
significant
simply
single
smoking
standard
statistics
steps
stores
studied
studies
study
subjects
substance
substances
suggests
supplement
suspect
terrible
test
testing
time
tools
treatment
trial
trials
true
types
usual
variables
vitamins
volunteers
wanted