A better methodology would have been to use piecewise (or “hockey-stick”) regression
It’s possible that better mathematical tools would improve conclusions in studies of this kind. But I increasingly believe that the problem lies not in the mathematics but in the very nature of the inquiry: questions of the type “does vitamin A improve health” simply cannot be answered on the basis of the information obtainable through these kinds of small sample size studies. The information content of the empirical data is far smaller than the complexity of the system under examination, and so no meaningful conclusions cannot be obtained.
Of all the scientific conclusions justified on the basis of statistical analysis, the most universally agreed-upon is probably that smoking increases mortality. But even that seemingly rock-solid result is surrounded by a fogofuncertainty.
It’s possible that better mathematical tools would improve conclusions in studies of this kind. But I increasingly believe that the problem lies not in the mathematics but in the very nature of the inquiry: questions of the type “does vitamin A improve health” simply cannot be answered on the basis of the information obtainable through these kinds of small sample size studies. The information content of the empirical data is far smaller than the complexity of the system under examination, and so no meaningful conclusions cannot be obtained.
Of all the scientific conclusions justified on the basis of statistical analysis, the most universally agreed-upon is probably that smoking increases mortality. But even that seemingly rock-solid result is surrounded by a fog of uncertainty.
The sample size was over 200,000 patients. You seem to be saying that medicine can’t be science.