RESUMEN
In the first half of 2020, much excitement in news media and some peer reviewed scientific articles was generated by the discovery that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and COVID-19 mortality rates are statistically significantly positively associated in some regression models. This article points out that they are non-significantly negatively associated in other regression models, once omitted confounders (such as latitude and longitude) are included. More importantly, positive regression coefficients can and do arise when (generalized) linear regression models are applied to data with strong nonlinearities, including data on PM2.5, population density, and COVID-19 mortality rates, due to model specification errors. In general, statistical modeling accompanied by judgments about causal interpretations of statistical associations and regression coefficients - the current weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach favored in much current regulatory risk analysis for air pollutants - is not a valid basis for determining whether or to what extent risk of harm to human health would be reduced by reducing exposure. The traditional scientific method based on testing predictive generalizations against data remains a more reliable paradigm for risk analysis and risk management.
RESUMEN
Recent advances in understanding of biological mechanisms and adverse outcome pathways for many exposure-related diseases show that certain common mechanisms involve thresholds and nonlinearities in biological exposure concentration-response (C-R) functions. These range from ultrasensitive molecular switches in signaling pathways, to assembly and activation of inflammasomes, to rupture of lysosomes and pyroptosis of cells. Realistic dose-response modeling and risk analysis must confront the reality of nonlinear C-R functions. This paper reviews several challenges for traditional statistical regression modeling of C-R functions with thresholds and nonlinearities, together with methods for overcoming them. Statistically significantly positive exposure-response regression coefficients can arise from many non-causal sources such as model specification errors, incompletely controlled confounding, exposure estimation errors, attribution of interactions to factors, associations among explanatory variables, or coincident historical trends. If so, the unadjusted regression coefficients do not necessarily predict how or whether reducing exposure would reduce risk. We discuss statistical options for controlling for such threats, and advocate causal Bayesian networks and dynamic simulation models as potentially valuable complements to nonparametric regression modeling for assessing causally interpretable nonlinear C-R functions and understanding how time patterns of exposures affect risk. We conclude that these approaches are promising for extending the great advances made in statistical C-R modeling methods in recent decades to clarify how to design regulations that are more causally effective in protecting human health.