Description

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Scott Berry examines three recent health-research headlines through a statistician's lens: an Adventist Health Study-2 analysis claiming eggs reduce Alzheimer's risk, an Emory University trial on high-dose vitamin D and cognition (Zhao et al.), and a British Medical Journal study led by Dr. Daniel Danishvar (Harvard, Boston University) reporting that 25 to 97 percent of deceased NFL players showed evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). After flagging multiplicity and small-sample issues in the first two studies, Scott spends most of the episode on the CTE study's central flaw: because CTE can only be diagnosed after death, the published prevalence is calculated from a sample of deceased players rather than the full population of NFL players — a distinction he illustrates using a thought experiment on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and a breakdown of the study's own age-stratified death data. He traces the resulting bias, a form of differential mortality, to a single caveat buried deep in the study's limitations section.

Key Highlights

• Adventist Health Study-2's "27% fewer Alzheimer's diagnoses in egg-eaters" finding, and why it's likely multiplicity-driven and observational, not causal.
• The Emory University vitamin D study (Zhao et al.): a 13% MoCA improvement drawn from roughly eight patients, presented as a headline finding.
• The British Medical Journal NFL CTE study (Danishvar et al., Harvard / Boston University): a headline prevalence of "25% to 97%" of NFL players.
• Why 215 of 235 donated brains (97.7%) is a hugely biased numerator — CTE is only diagnosed posthumously, and families of symptomatic players are most likely to donate.
• The corrected denominator: 878 NFL players who died between 2016 and 2021, yielding roughly 24.5% — still biased, because CTE itself accelerates death.
• A SIDS thought experiment showing how building a "population" from those who have already died systematically overstates prevalence through a form of differential mortality bias.
• The key limitation, buried three-quarters of the way through the paper's limitations section, quietly mentions the selection bias behind the headline number.

For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/