Brainchild: Does Mommyhood Make You Smarter?

I have no clever scientific critique of this hypothesis, as it seems to be based entirely on animal studies. But after experiencing a notable loss of mental function after giving birth, this article made me a little hopeful:

How Becoming A Mother Can Boost Your Brainpower

Good Times

I just found another reason to love the New York Times -- the "Really?" series examines popular medical claims, many of which are related to reproductive health. For example:

A woman is more fertile after a miscarriage

Morning sickness means a girl is more likely

Menstrual cycles can synchronize over time

Twins always skip a generation

Regular use of hot tubs can hurt fertility in men

You Make the Call: Using Cell Phones During Pregnancy

Did you see this headline earlier this year? Warning: Using a Mobile Phone While Pregnant Can Seriously Damage Your Baby!

I didn't catch this headline when it appeared back in May, but when I finally saw it this week I was alarmed enough to investigate further. Interestingly, it seems that the popular news media may have actually corrected itself on this one: a follow-up article from ABC News actually attempted to de-sensationalize (my word) the news. They actually sought the opinion of the author as well as a couple of real, live, well-respected epidemiologists to properly interpret the results of a study that linked mothers' cell phone use with behavioral problems in their children. In their words:

"We think it is interesting, but many associations seen in studies of this type occur due to chance."

"I think this is a competently and well-done study, but I think there are enough red flags that this should probably not be something the U.S. public needs to be alarmed about."

"This study is well worth publishing [in a medical journal]. But, given its highly preliminary and unexpected nature, and its liability to any number of methodologic problems, it is not the kind of study that should be making news in the general public."

I thought this last comment was particularly relevant to this blog -- all too often, I read a sensational headline in women's health that has snatched a preliminary finding from a mediocre study and turned it into an immediate! alarming! truth!

This is not to say that mediocre studies are useless. All epidemiologic studies are susceptible to problems; that is the nature of studying human beings who cannot be manipulated and controlled under laboratory conditions. It often takes a number of epidemiologic studies, each flawed in its own way, before a real association can be established. The purpose of this blog is to discuss and understand some of the most common methodologic problems, so that we can interpret the headlines through a more discerning lens.

In the meantime, don't throw your cell phone away.

A Few Good Reads

First of all, check the comments section of my last post to find the answer to your pop quiz. I hope you passed :)

The New York Times health section has a few good general interest articles this week:

1) Searching for Clarity: A Primer on Medical Studies. Author Gina Kolata explores the significance of clinical trials, sample sizes, and supporting evidence. I have a hunch that all the epidemiologists out there conducting observational studies might feel a little miffed by the conclusion of the article.

2) Applying Science to Alternative Medicine. Author William Broad discusses the lack of scientific evidence to back up the "extravagant" claims of some alternative medicine proponents, and highlights the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health that is seeking to apply rigorous research methods to evaluate these claims.

Pop Quiz

An intriguing headline this week: "Antidepressants May Harm Male Fertility". Check out this brief article from New Scientist magazine and tell me if you can spot any problems with this study.

Because We're All Friends

I forgot to mention in my post yesterday that epidemiology is often referred to fondly by its nickname, "epi" (EH-pee). You know, we're very casual people. So since it is kind of hard to type out the full words all the time, and 2 syllables are better than 7, from here on out you will probably see me write about Epi and Repro Epi...just so you know.

You Study...Skin?

Often preceded by a confused expression, this is the reaction that I generally get when I tell people that I am an epidemiologist. I don't think it helps matters when I try to explain that an epidemiologist could theoretically study skin, in fact an epidemiologist can study whatever he/she wants, but that I don't actually study skin...

According to a couple of esteemed epidemiologists, "epidemiologic research involves describing and interpreting patterns of disease occurrence in populations, in order to generate knowledge that can be used to prevent disease and avoid human suffering" (-Weiss and Koepsell, Epidemiologic Methods)

Basically, we study large populations of people, measure exposures and outcomes, and use this data to try to find out what factors might influence a person's risk of disease. A classic example of this is the discovery that smoking causes lung cancer; although it seems obvious now, there was a time when this connection was not accepted. It took a number of epidemiologic and laboratory studies to convince the world that smokers should probably stop smoking.

And although we might use epidemiology to study diseases of the skin, an epidemiologist is actually not anything like a dermatologist. Hope that makes sense.