{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02278481012658228, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00108499095840868, 'mean_word_length': 5.160356347438753, '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}}
[Demonstration of the facts and research of the causes in environmental epidemiology: methodological aspects].

There are usually three major steps in the study of the possible impact of environmental factors on health: 1) to demonstrate that there is an association between exposure to the factor and the disease under study; 2) to demonstrate that this association is causal; 3) to evaluate the health benefit that could be obtained by removing the source of exposure. Statistical methods are commonly assumed to provide an objective way of achieving these three steps. This paper reviews some of the conditions that have to be met to allow proper interpretations and to avoid some of the controversies that are often found in health-environment studies. First, it should be remembered that the so-called P value which is used to qualify 'statistically significant' associations between risk factors and diseases does not give any indication of the probability that this association is actual, while far too often it is believed that it does. The probability that an association between an environmental factor and a disease is real could, however, be estimated by using Bayesian methods. These methods require that the a priori probabilities be stated, which is difficult to do in practice. Some directions to overcome this difficulty are presented. Second, the analysis of causality cannot be carried out on statistical grounds alone and the so-called 'causality criteria' are of limited practical interest. Definition of what is a cause, and upon which conditions a candidate factor of a disease can be considered as a cause, deserves much research effort, and careful consideration of the huge literature (mostly outside of the epidemiological field, for example in logic) which is devoted to this subject. Finally, the measurement of the role of a factor in a disease is very often assessed through the use of 'attributable fraction' or 'attributable mortality'. This should be done only when it is demonstrated that the considered factor is causal. Moreover, the interpretation of attributable fractions to a specific factor may be difficult in the (general) case where there are multiple causal factors implied in the development of the disease. Demographic measures of 'potential years (or days, etc.) of life lost' should in general be used, rather than 'numbers of deaths' to quantify the possible impact of environmental factors. Also, as the personal factors are generally extremely important in the determinism of the causes of death associated to environmental factors, and as they cannot be controlled through ecological studies, epidemiological designs where these cofactors can be evaluated individually on cases and controls should be preferred.