{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01430615164520744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.481481481481482, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Determining causality in epidemiology: Why observational studies can be misleading and the case for experiments

In epidemiology, the purpose of causal inference is often to identify variables that appear to induce the event of interest, through observational methods. This is usually because it is not feasible to experimentally induce such an event. By identifying causes, interventions can be developed to prevent the effects from manifesting. However, observational research is not without limitations. This article discusses the ways in which observational research can be misleading and how these problems can be overcome with an alternative approach to experimenting on the event of interest.