You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

paulfchristiano comments on Moderate alcohol consumption inversely correlated with all-cause mortality - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: michaelcurzi 11 July 2012 05:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: paulfchristiano 11 July 2012 09:01:21PM 3 points [-]

Why do you have to blind it?

To make it most realistic, you would not only give the treatment group alcohol, you would tell them that controlled trials suggest that this treatment (self-referentially) will reduce all-cause mortality.

Comment author: shminux 11 July 2012 11:51:58PM 1 point [-]

I presume that there is a joke in there somewhere, but I fail to see it.

Comment author: tgb 12 July 2012 02:05:00AM 3 points [-]

I don't think it's a joke. I think paulfchristiano is saying that if we are interested in the effect treating studies like as reasons to change habits, then we should study the effects of changing behavior because of a study like this.

Comment author: VincentYu 12 July 2012 04:43:46AM 0 points [-]

An unblinded study would not be able to account for placebo effects.

Comment author: Decius 12 July 2012 06:08:35AM 0 points [-]

Why wouldn't I experience placebo effects if I started drinking as the result of controlled trials which suggest that drinking will reduce all-cause mortality?

I want to know the effectiveness of the combination of chemical effects and placebo effects from the treatment I take, not the effectiveness of an outwardly similar treatment that has had significant changes made for the purpose of getting results different from the results I should expect.

Comment author: VincentYu 12 July 2012 08:05:52AM *  0 points [-]

Ah. I believe we have interpreted shminux's top-level comment differently. I think shminux was stating that establishing the direct causal effects of alcohol consumption requires a blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT), which is true. However, blinding is indeed not required if one wishes to include the effects from the intervention method.

I am undecided on whether blinded RCTs are more cost-effective at the moment (obviously, it depends sensitively on what one wants to find out). In any case, I think we'll agree that any interventional study – blinded or unblinded – will offer a larger degree of control than the current observational studies. However, I did a brief literature search, and found Klatsky's (2010) comments on the difficulties in doing interventional studies on drinking:

The RCT with pre-specified end points is considered the best path to scientific truth in medical matters. Randomization is the best method of controlling for known and unknown confounders. Blinding, often part of the process, minimizes bias. The logistics of RCTs are more difficult for study of lifestyle changes than for pharmacologic or procedural interventions. We have no RCTs of moderate alcohol drinking with CAD or other fatal event end points. For ethical reasons the effects of heavy drinking are not amenable to an RCT, but the wish for such studies of chronic disease effects of moderate drinking is often expressed. Generally there has been little discussion of practical considerations. The hypothesized fractional benefits would require large numbers in a costly multicenter trial of long duration. Even assuming such an effort, could a representative study group, after exclusions, be recruited? If an appropriate population was acquired, could compliance with randomization to daily/almost daily moderate drinking or none be maintained for years? Is blinding possible? What alcohol dose(s) should be used? How many arms are needed (e.g., beer, liquor, white wine, red wine, alcohol-water mixture, placebo)? These are formidable problems. We do have studies relevant to intermediate “surrogate” markers, such as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, antithrombotic effects, and endothelial function. There is also promise in “natural’ experimental randomization by metabolic genetic polymorphisms related to alcohol metabolism. Unfortunately, it is likely that we will be left much-dependent upon observational epidemiology.