5.5 – Importance of randomization in experimental design

Introduction

If the goal of the research is to make general, evidenced-based statements about causes of disease or other conditions of concern to the researcher, then how the subjects are selected for study directly impacts our ability to make generalizable conclusions. The most important concept to learn about inference in statistical science is that your sample of subjects upon which all measurements and treatments are conducted, ideally should be a random selection of individuals from a well-defined reference population.

The primary benefit of random sampling is that it strengthens our confidence in the links between cause and effect. Often after an intervention trial is complete, differences among the treatment groups will be observed. Groups of subjects who participated in sixteen weeks of “vigorous” aerobic exercise training show reduced systolic blood pressure compared to those subjects who engaged in light exercise for the same period of time (Cox et al 1996). But how do we know that exercise training caused the difference in blood pressure between the two treatment groups? Couldn’t the differences be explained by chance differences in the subjects? Age, body mass index (BMI), overall health, family history, etc?

How can we account for these additional differences among the subjects? If you are thinking like an experimental biologist, then the word “control” is likely coming to the foreground. Why not design a study in which all 60 subjects are the same age, the same BMI, the same general health, the same family … history…? Hmm. That does not work. Even if you decide to control age, BMI, and general health categories, you can imagine the increased effort and cost to the project in trying to recruit subjects based on such narrow criteria. So, control per se is not the general answer.

If done properly, random sampling makes these alternative explanations less likely. Random sampling implies that other factors that may causally contribute to differences in the measured outcome, but themselves are not measured or included as a focus of the research study, should be the same, on average, among our different treatment groups. The practical benefits of proper random sampling is that recruiting subjects gets easier — fewer subjects will be needed because you are not trying to control dozens of factors that may (or may not!) contribute to differences in your outcome variable. The downside to random sampling is that the variability of the outcomes within your treatment groups will tends to increase. As we will see when we get to statistical inference, large variability within groups will make it less likely that any statistical difference between the treatment groups will be observed.

Demonstrate the benefits of random sampling as a method to control for extraneous factors.

The study reported by Cox et al included 60 obese men between the ages of 20 and 50. A reasonable experimental design decision would suggest that the 60 subjects be split into the two treatment groups such that both groups had 30 subjects for a balanced design. Subjects who met all of the research criteria and who had signed the informed consent agreement are to be placed into the treatment groups and there are many ways that group assignment could be accomplished. One possibility, the researchers could assign the first 30 people that came into the lab to the Vigorous exercise group and the remaining 30 then would be assigned to the Light exercise group. Intuitively I think we would all agree that this is a suspect way to design an experiment, but more importantly, why shouldn’t you use this convenient method?

Just for argument’s sake, imagine that their subjects came in one at a time, and, coincidentally, they did so by age. The first person was age 21, the second was 22, and so on up to the 30th person who was 50. Then, the next group came in, again, coincidentally in order of ascending age. If you calculate the simple average age for each group you will find that they are identical (35.5 years). On the surface, this looks like we have controlled for age: both treatment groups have subjects that are the same age. A second option is to sort the subjects into the two treatment groups so that a 21 year old is in Group A, and the other 21 year old is in Group B, and so on. Again, the average age of Group A subjects and of Group B subjects would be the same and therefore controlled with respect to any covariation between age and change in blood pressure. However, there are other variables that may covary with blood pressure, and by controlling one, we would need to control the others. Randomization provides a better way.

I will demonstrate how randomization tends to distribute the values in such a way that the groups will not differ appreciably for the nuisance variables like age and BMI differences and, by extension, any other covariable. The R work is attached following the Reading list. The take-home message: After randomly selecting subjects for assignment to the treatment groups, the apparent differences between Group A and Group B for both age and BMI are substantially diminished. No attempt to match by age and by BMI is necessary. The numbers are shown in the table and then in two graphics (Fig 1, Fig 2) derived from the table.

Table 1. Mean age and BMI for subjects in two treatment groups A and B where subjects were assigned randomly or by convenience to treatment groups.

Group	Random assignment of subjects to treatment groups	Convenience assignment of subjects to treatment groups
A	35.2	28
B	35.8	43
A	32.49	28.99
B	32.87	37.37

Just for emphasis, the means from Table 1 are presented in the next two figures (Fig 1 and Fig 2).

Figure 1. Age of subjects by groups (A = blue, B = red) with and without randomized assignment of subjects to treatment groups.

Figure 2. BMI of subjects by groups (A = blue, B = red) with and without randomized assignment of subjects to treatment groups.

Note that the apparent difference between A and B for BMI disappear once proper randomization of subjects was accomplished. In conclusion, a random sample is an approach to experimental design that helps to reduce the influence other factors may have on the outcome variable (eg, change in blood pressure after 16 weeks of exercise). In principle, randomization should protect a project because, on average, these influences will be represented randomly for the two groups of individuals. This reasoning extends to unmeasured and unknown causal factors as well.

This discussion was illustrated by random assignment of subjects to treatment groups. The same logic applies to how to select subjects from a population. If the sampling is large enough, then a random sample of subjects will tend to be representative of the variability of the outcome variable for the population and representative also of the additional and unmeasured cofactors that may contribute to the variability of the outcome variable.

What about observational studies? How does randomization work?

However, if you do cannot obtain a random sample, then conclusions reached may be sample-specific, biased. …perhaps the group of individuals that likes to exercise on treadmills just happens to have a higher cardiac output because they are larger than the individuals that like to exercise on bicycles. This nonrandom sample, an example of confounding where an extraneous or nuisance variable, body size, is associated with both the independent variable (exercise preference) and the dependent variable (cardiac output), will bias your results and can lead to incorrect interpretation of results.

Alternatively, perhaps a researcher elects to study the cardiac output of treadmill users versus bicycle users. The researcher sets up their testing station inside a gym’s powerlifting zone, where the largest individuals in the gym hang out. Inevitably because of this choice, the researcher over recruits larger individuals into the treadmill group, leading to a falsely elevated average cardiac output for treadmill users. This is an example of ascertainment bias — the sample is not representative of all treadmill users at the gym.

Random sampling is CRUCIAL in epidemiology, opinion survey work, most aspects of health, drug studies, medical work with human subjects. It’s difficult and very costly to do… so most surveys you hear about, especially polls reported from Internet sites, are NOT conducted using random sampling (included in the catch-all term “probability sampling“)!! As an aside, most opinion survey work involves complex sample designs involving some form of geographic clustering (eg, all phone numbers in a city, random sample among neighborhoods).

Random sampling is the ideal if generalizations are to be made about data, but strictly random sampling is not appropriate for all kinds of studies. Consider the question of whether or not EMF exposure is a risk factor for developing cancer (Pool 1990). These kinds of studies are observational: at least in principle, we wouldn’t expect that housing and therefore exposure to EMF is manipulated (cf. discussion Walker 2009). Thus, epidemiologists will look for patterns: if EMF exposure is linked to cancer, then more cases of cancer should occur near EMF sources compared to areas distant from EMF sources. Thus, the hypothesis is that an association between EMF exposure and cancer occurs non-randomly, whereas cancers occurring in people not exposed to EMF are random. Unfortunately, clusters can occur even if the process that generates the data is random.

Compare Graph A and Graph B (Fig 3). One of the graphs resulted from a random process and the other was generated by a non-random process. Note that the claim can be rephrased about the probability that each grid has a point, eg, it’s like Heads/Tails of 16 tosses of a coin. We can see clusters of points in Graph B; Graph A lacks obvious clusters of points — there is a point in each of the 16 cells of the grid. Although both patterns could be random, the correct answer in this case is Graph B.

Figure 3. An example of clustering resulting from a random sampling process (Graph B). In contrast, Graph A was generated so that a point was located within each grid.

Hard to tell — and truth be told, random process could generate either one. To convince you, Figure 4 reveals the grouping that was done for Group A, in contrast with Group B which was drawn with the truly random process.

Figure 4. Same graphs as Figure 3, but with ellipses around the grouped data (hard to tell, but the centroids are the larger points). 

Implications for sampling

The graphic below shows the transmission grid in the continental United States (Fig 5). How would one design a random sampling scheme overlaid against the obviously heterogeneous distribution of the grid itself? If a random sample was drawn, chances are good that no population would be near a grid in many of the western states, but in contrast, the likelihood would increase in the eastern portion of the United States where the population and therefore transmission grid is more densely placed.

Figure 5. Map of electrical transmission grid for continental United States of America. Image source https://openinframap.org/#3/24.61/-101.16

For example, you want to test whether or not EMF affects human health, and your particular interest is in whether or not there exists a relationship between living close to high voltage towers or transfer stations and brain cancer. How does one design a study, keeping in mind the importance of randomization for our ability to generalize and assign causation?  This is a part of epidemiology which strives to detect whether clusters of disease are related to some environmental source. It is an extremely difficult challenge. For the record, no clear link to EMF and cancer has been found, but reports do appear from time to time (eg, report on a cluster of breast cancer in men working in office adjacent to high EMF, Milham 2004).

 

Questions

1. Use the sample() with and without replacement on the object (see help with R below)

fruit <- c("apple", "banana", "grape", "kiwi", "pear", "pineapple", "tomato")

a) set of 3

b) set of 4

2. Confirm the claim by calculating the probability of Graph A result vs Graph B result (see R script below).

Quiz Chapter 5.5

Importance of randomization in experimental design

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

---

R code!

Code you type is shown in red; responses or output from R are shown in blue. Recall that statements preceded by the hash # are comments and are not read by R (ie, no need for you to type them).

First, create some variables. Vectors aa and bb contain my two age sequences.

 aa = seq(21,50)
 bb = seq(21,50)

Second, append vector bb to the end of vector aa

 age = append(aa,bb)
 age           #submit the vector (variable) name to print the records for verification - looks good! 
  [1] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
 [48] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Third, get the average age for the first group (the aa sequence)  and for the second group (the bb sequence). Lots of ways to do this, I made a two subsets from the combined age variable; could have just as easily taken the mean of aa and the mean of bb (same thing!).

 A = age[1:30]
 mean(A)
 [1] 35.5
 B = age[31:60]
 mean(B)
 [1] 35.5

Fourth, start building a data frame, then sort it by age. Will be adding additional variables to this data frame

 ex.random = data.frame(age)
 AO.all = sort(ex.random$age)
 AO.age           #submit the vector (variable) name to print the records for verification - looks good! 
  [1] 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44
 [48] 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50

Fifth, divide the variable again into two subsets of 30 and get the averages

 AO = AO.age[1:30]
 AO
  [1] 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35
 mean(AO)
 [1] 28 
 BO = AO.age[31:60]
 BO
  [1] 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50
 mean(BO)
 [1] 43

Sixth, create an index variable, random order without replacement

 rand.index = sample(1:60,60,replace=F)

Add the new variable to our existing data frame, then print it to check that all is well

 ex.random$rand = rand.index
 ex.random
    age rand
 1   21   43
 2   22   15
 3   23   17
 4   24   35
 5   25   19
 6   26   18
 7   27   22
 8   28   31
 9   29   12
 10  30   44
 11  31   24
 12  32    5
 13  33    2
 14  34   50
 15  35   23
 16  36   20
 17  37   41
 18  38   56
 19  39   36
 20  40    8
 21  41   45
 22  42   38
 23  43   42
 24  44   46
 25  45   16
 26  46   21
 27  47   28
 28  48   10
 29  49   32
 30  50   54
 31  21   57
 32  22   51
 33  23   27
 34  24   40
 35  25   14
 36  26   48
 37  27   26
 38  28   58
 39  29    9
 40  30   11
 41  31    4
 42  32   52
 43  33   37
 44  34   53
 45  35    6
 46  36   34
 47  37   39
 48  38    7
 49  39    1
 50  40   47
 51  41   33
 52  42   60
 53  43   49
 54  44   30
 55  45   29
 56  46   55
 57  47   13
 58  48    3
 59  49   25
 60  50   59

Seventh, select for our first treatment group the first 30 subjects from the randomized index. There are again other ways to do this, but sorting on the index variable means that the subject order will be change too.

 AR.age = ex.random[order(ex.random$rand),]     #created a new data frame to distinguish it from the presorted version "ex.random"

Print the new data frame to confirm that the sorting worked. It did. we can see that the rows have been sorted by ascending order based on the index variable.

 AR.age
    age rand
 49  39    1
 13  33    2
 58  48    3
 41  31    4
 12  32    5
 45  35    6
 48  38    7
 20  40    8
 39  29    9
 28  48   10
 40  30   11
 9   29   12
 57  47   13
 35  25   14
 2   22   15
 25  45   16
 3   23   17
 6   26   18
 5   25   19
 16  36   20
 26  46   21
 7   27   22
 15  35   23
 11  31   24
 59  49   25
 37  27   26
 33  23   27
 27  47   28
 55  45   29
 54  44   30
 8   28   31
 29  49   32
 51  41   33
 46  36   34
 4   24   35
 19  39   36
 43  33   37
 22  42   38
 47  37   39
 34  24   40
 17  37   41
 23  43   42
 1   21   43
 10  30   44
 21  41   45
 24  44   46
 50  40   47
 36  26   48
 53  43   49
 14  34   50
 32  22   51
 42  32   52
 44  34   53
 30  50   54
 56  46   55
 18  38   56
 31  21   57
 38  28   58
 60  50   59
 52  42   60

Eighth, create our new treatment groups, again of n = 30 each, then get the means ages for each group.

 AR = AR.age$age[1:30]
 mean(AR)
 [1] 35.16667
 AR2 = AR.all$all[31:60]
 mean(AR2)
 [1] 35.83333

Get the minimum and maximum values for the groups

 min(AR)
 [1] 22
 min(AR2)
 [1] 21
 max(AR)
 [1] 49
 max(AR2)
 [1] 50

Ninth, create a BMI variable drawn from a normal distribution with coefficient of variation equal to 20%. The first group with we will call cc

 cc = rnorm(n=30,m=27.5, sd=5.5)          #mean was 27.5 for this group with standard deviation of 5.5

The second group called dd

 dd = rnorm(n=30,m=37.5, sd=7.5)          #mean was 37.5 for this group with standard deviation of 7.5

Create a new variable called BMI by joining cc and dd

 BMI=append(cc,dd)
 BMI            #print out BMI to confirm. Looks good!
  [1] 27.87528 27.83250 31.88703 34.99041 24.06751 23.50952 22.57779 31.48394 31.04321 25.60258 25.41081 22.34619 34.62213 36.41348 41.17740
 [16] 20.56529 27.25238 21.85205 32.11690 32.37168 23.11314 33.29110 34.99106 38.22016 18.72105 26.22030 25.13412 27.50475 34.79361 32.81267
 [31] 47.57872 27.58428 40.17211 38.22195 26.91893 37.02784 53.72671 34.94727 30.35245 38.32571 40.52111 36.15627 30.36592 36.20397 47.63142
 [46] 40.30846 36.47643 50.86804 43.63741 37.84994 42.82665 41.71008 28.44976 24.57906 42.37762 38.38512 35.22879 31.34063 34.02996 27.28038

Add the BMI variable to our data frame.

 ex.random$BMI = BMI
 ex.random              #Print out the revised data frame. Looks good. We now have three variables: age, the index "rand," and now BMI
    age rand      BMI
 1   21   43 27.87528
 2   22   15 27.83250
 3   23   17 31.88703
 4   24   35 34.99041
 5   25   19 24.06751
 6   26   18 23.50952
 7   27   22 22.57779
 8   28   31 31.48394
 9   29   12 31.04321
 10  30   44 25.60258
 11  31   24 25.41081
 12  32    5 22.34619
 13  33    2 34.62213
 14  34   50 36.41348
 15  35   23 41.17740
 16  36   20 20.56529
 17  37   41 27.25238
 18  38   56 21.85205
 19  39   36 32.11690
 20  40    8 32.37168
 21  41   45 23.11314
 22  42   38 33.29110
 23  43   42 34.99106
 24  44   46 38.22016
 25  45   16 18.72105
 26  46   21 26.22030
 27  47   28 25.13412
 28  48   10 27.50475
 29  49   32 34.79361
 30  50   54 32.81267
 31  21   57 47.57872
 32  22   51 27.58428
 33  23   27 40.17211
 34  24   40 38.22195
 35  25   14 26.91893
 36  26   48 37.02784
 37  27   26 53.72671
 38  28   58 34.94727
 39  29    9 30.35245
 40  30   11 38.32571
 41  31    4 40.52111
 42  32   52 36.15627
 43  33   37 30.36592
 44  34   53 36.20397
 45  35    6 47.63142
 46  36   34 40.30846
 47  37   39 36.47643
 48  38    7 50.86804
 49  39    1 43.63741
 50  40   47 37.84994
 51  41   33 42.82665
 52  42   60 41.71008
 53  43   49 28.44976
 54  44   30 24.57906
 55  45   29 42.37762
 56  46   55 38.38512
 57  47   13 35.22879
 58  48    3 31.34063
 59  49   25 34.02996
 60  50   59 27.28038

Tenth, repeat our protocol from before: Set up two groups each with 30 subjects, calculate the means for the variables and then sort by the random index and get the new group means.

 AO = ex.random$BMI[1:30]
 mean(AO)
 [1] 28.99333
 BO = ex.random$BMI[31:60]
 mean(BO)
 [1] 37.36943

All we did was confirm that the unsorted groups had mean BMI of around 27.5 and 37.5 respectively. Now, proceed to sort by the random index variable. Go ahead and create a new data frame

 AR.age = ex.random[order(ex.random$rand),]
 AR.age                 #Print out the new data frame to confirm. Looks good.
    age rand      BMI
 49  39    1 43.63741
 13  33    2 34.62213
 58  48    3 31.34063
 41  31    4 40.52111
 12  32    5 22.34619
 45  35    6 47.63142
 48  38    7 50.86804
 20  40    8 32.37168
 39  29    9 30.35245
 28  48   10 27.50475
 40  30   11 38.32571
 9   29   12 31.04321
 57  47   13 35.22879
 35  25   14 26.91893
 2   22   15 27.83250
 25  45   16 18.72105
 3   23   17 31.88703
 6   26   18 23.50952
 5   25   19 24.06751
 16  36   20 20.56529
 26  46   21 26.22030
 7   27   22 22.57779
 15  35   23 41.17740
 11  31   24 25.41081
 59  49   25 34.02996
 37  27   26 53.72671
 33  23   27 40.17211
 27  47   28 25.13412
 55  45   29 42.37762
 54  44   30 24.57906
 8   28   31 31.48394
 29  49   32 34.79361
 51  41   33 42.82665
 46  36   34 40.30846
 4   24   35 34.99041
 19  39   36 32.11690
 43  33   37 30.36592
 22  42   38 33.29110
 47  37   39 36.47643
 34  24   40 38.22195
 17  37   41 27.25238
 23  43   42 34.99106
 1   21   43 27.87528
 10  30   44 25.60258
 21  41   45 23.11314
 24  44   46 38.22016
 50  40   47 37.84994
 36  26   48 37.02784
 53  43   49 28.44976
 14  34   50 36.41348
 32  22   51 27.58428
 42  32   52 36.15627
 44  34   53 36.20397
 30  50   54 32.81267
 56  46   55 38.38512
 18  38   56 21.85205
 31  21   57 47.57872
 38  28   58 34.94727
 60  50   59 27.28038
 52  42   60 41.71008

Get the means of the new groups

 AR = AR.age$BMI[1:30]
 mean(AR)
 [1] 32.49004
 min(AR)
 [1] 18.72105
 max(AR)
 [1] 53.72671
 AR2 = AR.all$BMI[31:60]
 mean(AR2)
 [1] 33.87273
 min(AR2)
 [1] 21.85205
 max(AR2)
 [1] 47.57872

That’s all of the work!

Data set

nonrandom

X	Y
0.779	0.747
0.098	1.248
0.697	2.811
0.59	3.553
1.295	0.075
1.858	1.207
1.172	2.388
1.597	3.051
2.051	0.242
2.081	1.546
2.016	2.738
2.587	3.088
3.833	0.088
3.776	1.264
3.017	2.254
3.657	3.712

random

X1	Y1
1.157	3.203
2.407	0.62
1.033	1.946
3.676	2.866
3.57	2.703
3.056	0.685
1.568	3.355
1.041	1.753
0.643	2.295
2.884	0.687
3.53	2.591
2.838	2.431
3.945	1.518
0.34	1.64
2.45	0.386
3.921	2.976

---

Chapter 5 contents

• The basics explained
• Experiments
• Experimental and Sampling units
• Replication, Bias, and Nuisance Variables
• Clinical trials
• Importance of randomization in experimental design
• Sampling from Populations
• References and suggested readings

5 – Experimental design

Beyond numbers.

During this course, you will learn about statistics, yes, but my hope and goal for your experience in this class is much more than that: statistical reasoning. To have statistical reasoning skills, you need to be comfortable with the context of how data are acquired, ie, data acquisition. It’s not just about knowing how an instrument performs, eg, under or over the limits of quantification characteristics of the instrument lead to censored missing values, missing not at random (MNAR). In a broad stoke view, data are obtained from two kinds of studies: observational studies and experimental (manipulative) studies. what a correctly designed experiment can tell you about the world, and how a poorly designed experiment works against you. At the end of the semester, you should be familiar with the issues of Randomization, Control, Independence, and Replication.

The basics explained.

Experimental design is a discipline within statistics concerned with the analysis and design of experiments. Design is intended to help research create experiments such that cause and effect can be established from tests of the hypothesis. We introduced elements of experimental design in Chapter 2.4. I recommend a quick re-read: We talk about the different types of bias that can affect research. We also point out parts of the problem you’ll need to think about when planning a project, so you can avoid or reduce bias from the start.

Here, we expand our discussion of experimental design. We begin with review of definitions and an outline of an important concept in statistics. First, we need to be clear about why we measure or conduct experiments. We do so to collect data (datum is the singular) about a characteristic or trait from a population. Data are observations: they include observations and measurements from instruments. At their best, data are the “facts” of science.

Measurement, Observation, Variables, Values.

Measurement is how we as scientists acquire our data (Chapter 3.4). The process of measuring involves the assignment of numbers, codes, or labels to observations according to rules established prior to any data collection (Stevens 1946, Houle et al 2011). Observations refer to the units of measurement, whereas variables are the characteristics or traits that are measured. A value refers to the particular number, score, or label assigned to a particular sample for a variable. Variables are generic, the thing being measured, values are specific to the subject or sample being measured for the variable. Each discipline in biology has its own set of variables and samples may or may not have different values for each variable measured. Variables are summarized as a statistic (eg, the sample mean), which is a number taken to estimate a parameter, which pertains to the population. Variables and parameters in statistics were discussed in Chapter 3.4. Because numbers or scores or labels can be assigned according to different rules, this means that variables may be measured on different kinds of scales or data types. The different kinds of data types were presented in Chapter 3.1.

Missing values.

A missing value refers to lack of a value for an observation or variable (Chapter 3.5).  Censored values, a type of missing value, include observations for which limited or partial information is available, eg, range, while a missing value lacks any information about the true value.

Missing values can affect analysis and many R algorithms are sensitive or may fail to run in the presence of missing values. Missing data may be of three kinds, and one of them, missing not at random (MNAR), can substantially influence the analysis. MNAR implies some observations are missing because of a systematic bias. Instrument limits of quantification are an example of systematic bias — for example, spectrophotometric absorbance readings of zero for a colorimetric assay (eg, Bradford protein assay) may not represent complete absence of the target, but rather, the lower detection limits of the instrument or the assay method (0.1 mg protein/mL in this case).

The other kinds of missing values are missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR). MCAR implies there is no association between any element of the experiment and the absence of a value. Analysis on MCAR data sets may support unbiased conclusions. MAR includes the random errors that occur during data acquisition: data may be lost because of operator error or power outage (shudder). Unlike MNAR, analysis of MAR, like MCAR data sets may still result in unbiased conclusions.

One consequence of missing values — a decision how best to handle the lost information. The options are either pairwise deletion or listwise deletion. Listwise means the entire row, all variables, are lost for any record with one or more missing values. You recorded root length, stem length, numbers of secondary roots, time to germinate, but the SPAD meter failed and there is no chlorophyl reading for seedling #212? Sorry, the entire row is deleted. Optionally, the missing data is deleted pairwise — only chlorophyl reading for #212 is lost, all other variables remain.

Users of R will quickly learn some algorithms immediately fail to run if not instructed how to process missing values. In some cases, missing values can be replaced by imputed values.

Cause & Effect.

Observations or measurements gathered under controlled conditions (experiments) are essential if we are to answer questions about populations, to separate cause and effect, where one or more events is directly the result of another factor, as opposed to anecdote, a story about an event which, by itself, cannot be used to cause from association (eg, spurious correlations, see Ch 16.2). Recall that anecdotal evidence typically comes from personal experience, where observations may be obtained by non-systematic methods. Well designed experiments, in the classical sense, permit discrimination among competing hypotheses in large part because observations are collected according to strict rules. Well developed hypotheses tested by well-designed experiments permit ruling out alternative explanations (sensu Pratt [1964] strong inference). Observational studies, or epidemiology studies if we are talking about investigations of risk assessment, also may contribute to discussions of cause and effect (see history of smoking by Doll 1998).

Medicine is replete with stories about how a patient showed a particular set of symptoms, and how a physician applied a set of diagnostic protocols. An outcome was achieved, and the physician reports the outcome and circumstances related to the patient to her colleagues. This is an example of a case study, and the focus of investigation is the individual, the patient. The doctor’s report will sound like, “I tried the standard treatment given the diagnosis, and the patient’s symptoms diminished, but later returned. I tried a higher dose, but the patient’s symptoms persisted unabated.” No inferences are made to a wider set of individuals and the report is anecdotal. If observations are made on several patients, this may be a case series.

In ecology, a field biologist may notice a six-legged adult frog (Scott 1999, Alvarez et al 2021) — since frogs typically have four legs, the six-legged frog attracts the biologist’s eye and he jots down the circumstances in which the frog were found: relative humidity, air temperature, ground temperature, where the frogs was found (on lower leaf of a philodendron plant). A water source near where the frog was found is tested for pH with a meter the biologist carries, and a water sample is taken for later testing of herbicides. The frog is collected so that it can be checked for skin parasites. Upon further inspection, the frog did indeed have parasites known to cause deformities in other frog species. However, note that this example too, is a case study. Although the biologist makes additional observations, any conclusions about why the frog has six legs is anecdotal.

From these case studies, no conclusions can be drawn. We cannot say why the patient failed to respond to treatment, nor can we say why the frog has six legs. Why? Because these are singular events, and a variety of explanations can be given as to their causes — importantly, no controls are available, so there’s no way to distinguish among possibilities.

From such anecdotes, however, experiments can be designed. The physician may decide to recruit additional patients with the diagnosed illness and apply the standard treatment to see if her anecdote is a single, unique event, or more indicative of a problem with the treatment. The biologist may collect other frogs from the area near where he found the six-legged frog and check to see if they, too, have the parasites. If additional patients fail to respond to the treatment, then the singular even is more likely to be a phenomenon. If the normal frogs also have similar levels of the parasite then it is unlikely that these parasites caused the malformed frog. With this simple step (recruiting similar patients, finding additional frogs), we can begin to make inferences about cause and effect and in some cases, to generalize our findings.

This is the objective of most statistical procedures, the concept of sampling from a reference population and making distinctions between groups within the sample. The difference between observational and experimental studies then is how the subjects are selected with respect to the groups. In an experiment, the researcher controls and decides which subject receives the treatment, therefore, allocation to groups is manipulated by the researcher. In contrast, subjects included in an observational study have already been “assigned” to a group, but not by us. Assignment to groups, smokers or non smokers, Type II diabetes or no diabetes (etc.), is done by nature.

Now, I do not wish to imply that research that cannot be generalized back to a reference population are worthless. Far from it. In fact, there is a strong argument for specificity. For example, much basic biological research depends on work or model organisms, which in turn may be further partitioned into specific genetic lines (cf. discussion in Rothman et al 2013). And my goodness, what we have learned about the devastation to oceanic islands like Guam when the brown tree snake was introduced (Fritts and Rodda 1998).  Strictly speaking, what has happened to Guam is a case history. But no one would argue that what has happened to Guam cannot happen to Hawaii and other oceanic islands (eg, United States Federal law 384-108 “Brown Tree Snake Control and Eradication Act of 2004”). In other words, even from case histories, generalizations can sometimes be made.

There can also be real reasons to ignore the issue of generality. One benefit of specificity is experimental control. Transgenic lines may differ by single gene knockout or by gene duplication, and clearly the aim of such studies is to evaluate the function (hence purpose) of the gene product (or its absence) on some phenotype. In this sense it may not seem important that an transgenic mouse is not representative of a wild outbred mouse population. However, this argument is fundamentally one of expedience — such studies do result in specific results, results that cannot be generalized beyond the strains involved. It ignores the issue of genetic background — all of the genes that affect a trait in addition to the candidate gene under study (Sigmund 2000; Lariviere et al 2001). Transgenic mice of different inbred strains or their hybrids may have very different alleles at other genes that may influence a phenotype, hence, the results of the gene knockdown or other engineering result in different outcomes. Results of genetic manipulations on inbred strains, no matter how sophisticated, the conclusions are strain- or hybrid cross-specific. Thus, although technically and financially difficult, conclusions are better, more generalizable, when conducted with many different inbred lines and verified in outbred mouse populations precisely because genetic background often influences function of single genes (Sigmund 2000; Lariviere et al 2001).

“Causal criteria:” Logic of causation in medicine.

This section is in progress. Just a list of key points and references

Throughout this text, emphasis on the power of experimentation is emphasized. Well designed experiments …

Henle-Koch’s postulates (1877, 1882), working on tuberculosis reported a set of causal criteria to establish link between a microorganism and a disease, are the following:

• The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
• The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
• The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
• The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

Robert Koch wrote these more than 100 years ago, so, clearly, understanding of infectious disease has improved. Evan’s postulates, quoted from A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 5th edition (pp. 86-87).

1. Prevalence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the hypothesized cause than in controls not so exposed.
2. Exposure to the hypothesized cause should be more frequent among those with the disease than in controls without the disease—when all other risk factors are held constant.
3. Incidence of the disease should be significantly higher in those exposed to the hypothesized cause than in those not so exposed, as shown by prospective studies.
4. The disease should follow exposure to the hypothesized causative agent with a normal or log-normal distribution of incubation periods.
5. A spectrum of host responses should follow exposure to the hypothesized agent along a logical biological gradient from mild to severe.
6. A measurable host response following exposure to the hypothesized cause should have a high probability of appearing in those lacking this before exposure (eg, antibody, cancer cells) or should increase in magnitude if present before exposure. This response pattern should occur infrequently in persons not so exposed.
7. Experimental reproduction of the disease should occur more frequently in animals or humans appropriately exposed to the hypothesized cause than in those not so exposed; this exposure may be deliberate in volunteers, experimentally induced in the laboratory, or may represent a regulation of natural exposure.
8. Elimination or modification of the hypothesized cause should decrease the incidence of the disease (eg, attenuation of a virus, removal of tar from cigarettes).
9. Prevention or modification of the host’s response on exposure to the hypothesized cause should decrease or eliminate the disease (eg, immunization, drugs to lower cholesterol, specific lymphocyte transfer factor in cancer).
10. All of the relationships and findings should make biological and epidemiological sense.

Fredericks, D. N., & Relman, D. A. (1996). Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates. Clinical microbiology reviews, 9(1), 18-33.

Correlation (association) does not imply causation, a well-worn truism in any application of critical thinking skills. Conversely, causation does imply association (correlation); If a change in one variable directly changes another variable, there will be a statistical association between the two variables. Thus, a correlation between two variables is necessary, but not sufficient evidence for cause and effect between two variables.

However, sometimes association does point to a cause. A familiar example is association between tobacco cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.  Surgeon General Luthar Terry’s 1964 report (link to document in National Library of Medicine), presented a strong case linking smoking to elevated risk of lung cancer and coronary artery disease.

Bradford Hill’s guidelines to evaluate causal effects based on epidemiology (Hill 1965, see also Sussar 1999, Fedak et al 2015). Set of necessary and sufficient conditions, inductive reasoning.

1. Strength of association
2. Consistency of observed association
3. Specificity of association
4. Temporal relationship of the association
5. Biological gradient, eg, a dose-response curve
6. Biological plausibility
7. Coherence, the cause and effect inference should not conflict with what is known about the etiology of a disease.

Follows and extends David Hume’s (1739) causation criteria: association (Hill #1), cause precedes effect (Hill #4), direction of connection.

Validity.

An obvious objective of research is to reach valid conclusions about fundamental questions. A helpful distinction between the specific and the generalizable experiment is to recognize there are two forms of validity in research: internal validity and external validity (Elwood 2013). Internal validity is the quality of a designed study that determines whether cause and effect can be determined. Random assignment of subjects to treatment groups enhances the internal validity of the study. External validity relates to how general the assessment of cause and effect can be to other populations. Thus, random sampling from a reference population has to do with whether or not the study has external validity.

Additional definitions.

We proceed now with definitions. We use the term population in a special and restrictive way in statistics. Our definition includes the one you are already familiar with, but it also means more than that.

Populations are the entire group of individuals that you want to investigate. In statistics, the entire groups is actually the entire class with the observation — so if we are referring to the average body weight of house mice, we’re actually referring to the body weight as the population — it’s a subtle distinction, not essential for our introduction to biostatistics. When we conduct experiments and apply statistical tests on collected data, we generally intend to make inferences (draw conclusions) from our results back to the population.

Population has a strict application in statistics, but the definition also includes our general understanding of the word population. For example, Examples of a population in the general sense one may refer to include: .… the entire human population existing today .… the entire collection of U.S. citizens. .… all the individuals in an entire species. .… all individuals in a population of a species (eg, house mice in a dairy barn in Hawai’i) .… all of us in this classroom (if we are ONLY interested in US) If you could measure the entire population then there would be no need to do (or learn) statistics! Populations usually are in the thousands, millions, or billions of individuals. Here, population is used in the everyday sense that we think of — a collection of individuals that share a characteristic.

A more formal definition of “population” in statistics reads as follows: A statistical population is the complete set of possible measurements on a trait or characteristic corresponding to the entire collection of sampling units for which conclusions are intended.

To conclude, in this class, when we talk about population, we will generally be using it in the everyday sense of the word. However, keep in mind that the definition is more restrictive than that and the key is to identify what sampling units are measured.

Conclusions.

This is only the beginning, the basics of experimental design. Beginning with RA Fisher‘s 1935 book, The Design of Experiments (nine editions, some freely accessible via internet search), which is still very much worth reading, entire books are written on the subject, as you can well imagine.

We will also return to the subject of Experimental Design throughout the book. We will return to random sampling in Chapter 5.5. Next we discuss distinctions between experiments and observational studies with respect to sampling of populations.

A bit of a disclaimer here before proceeding; while I cite several papers for examples in experimental design in Chapter 5, reader’s should not read into this that I am either criticizing or endorsing the published experiments. Experimental design will always have elements of compromise — the trick of course is knowing which choices influence validity (Thompson and Panacek 2006).

Questions.

1. Define in your own words the following terms

• reference population
• subjects
• specific versus general conclusions
• random sampling
• convenience sampling
• haphazard sampling
• research validity

2. Revisit our cell experiment, “What is the sampling unit in the following cell experiment?” How would you change this experiment so that there will be biological and not just technical replication?
3. Describe the type of sampling for each research scenario described?

• All African snails on a staircase at Chaminade University are collected on a Thursday evening.
• All African snails on a staircase at Chaminade University are collected every Thursday evening for six months.
• All African snails on all staircases at Chaminade University are collected.
• African snails are studied in the lab, then returned to the areas from which they were collected. Days later, the researcher collects snails from the same area.
• African snails are studied in the lab, then returned to the areas from which they were collected. Days later, the researcher collects snails from a different area.
• The Chaminade University campus is divided into grids. Grids that include stairwells are marked. Before collecting snails, the researcher randomly selects from the list of grids and searches for snails only in those grids selected from the list.
• 
  Figure 1. Giant African Snail (Lissachatina fulica, formerly Achatina fulica). Image by M. Dohm.

4. This next scenario may be evaluated by you for potential sources of bias. Review the list of bias listed above. A researcher wants to do a population count of feral cats on campus. Feral cats are active at night, so he decides to set up a feeding station near a light post. The researcher sits all night in a parked car yards away and watches the feeding station for visits by cats. The researcher repeats these observations over the course of a week, moving the feeding station to different campus locations each night, and reports the total number of cats seen during the week as an estimate of the population size. Be able to discuss this study in terms of potential and actual bias.

Quiz

Including the quiz on this page, a total of 65 questions among the several subchapters, a mix of true or false and multiple choice question format.

Quiz Chapter 5

Experimental design

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 5 contents

• The basics explained
• Experiments
• Experimental and Sampling units
• Replication, Bias, and Nuisance Variables
• Clinical trials
• Importance of randomization in experimental design
• Sampling from Populations
• References and suggested readings