Paper detail

Statistical Problems in a Paper on Variation In Cancer Risk Among Tissues, and New Discoveries

Tomasetti and Vogelstein (2015) collected data on 31 different tissue types and found a correlation of 0.8 between the logarithms of the incidence of cancer (LCI), and the estimated number of stem cell divisions in those tissues (LSCD). Some of their conclusions however are statistically erroneous. Their excess risk score, "ERS" (log10 LCI x log10 LSCD), is non-monotonic under a change of time units for the rates, which renders meaningless the results derived from it, including a cluster of 22 "R-tumor" types for which they conclude, "primary prevention measures are not likely to be very effective". Further, r = 0.8 is consistent with the three orders of magnitude variation in other unmeasured factors, leaving room for the possibility of primary prevention if such factors can be intervened upon. Further exploration of the data reveals additional findings: (1) that LCI grows at approximately the square root of LSCD, which may provide a clue to the biology; (2) among different possible combinations of the primary data, the one maximizing the correlations with LCI is almost precisely the formula used by Tomasetti and Vogelstein to estimate LSCD, giving support to stem cell divisions as an independent factor in carcinogenesis, while not excluding other such factors.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.