Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 52


     
     1        age at menarche, number of full term pregnancies, duration
     2        of nursing in years, first user or contraceptives of age 15
     3        plus had benign heart disease.  Female first degree
     4        relative had breast cancer and level of opium use".
     5
     6        Can you, Professor, while we are at it, because we had this
     7        the other day, explain why one sees so frequently in these
     8        studies that adjustment is made or control is made for
     9        level of education?
    10        A.  Usually that is a surrogate indicator of various other
    11        things that go on in one's social life of course, and it is
    12        rather non-descript.  A term is stuck in there to try to
    13        capture some of the things that might go on as a result of
    14        the social conditions.  But often times it is usually not
    15        explained and I am not sure why people would want to do
    16        that as often as they do.
    17
    18   Q.   It is a risk factor in most of these studies, is it not?
    19        The college education seems to figure.  Whether it is
    20        because it delays first parity or what one does not know,
    21        but it does appear as a risk factor, does it not?
    22        A.  Yes.  But it is rather odd because sometimes it is up
    23        and sometimes it us down for a particular country, so
    24        I really would not want to generalise about that term.
    25
    26   Q.   I am going to ask to you look at one other table in a
    27        moment, but can I ask you to look at the penultimate page
    28        of this study.  It is under the general heading
    29        "Discussion".  I think the page number is 1357.
    30        A.  Yes, I have that.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not sure I understand Professor
    33        Campbell's conclusion in relation to the fats.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  I am sorry.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Because you put the relative risk, you said,
    38        ends up at between 1.2 and 1.3.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You suggest that that is not significant.
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I do.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What do you say about that?  I mean, it is
    47        true that you have higher figures.  I find it very
    48        difficult to relate the adjusted relative risk in the total
    49        to?
    50        A.  This is ---- 
    51 
    52   Q.   The adjusted relative risk in the total to the adjusted 
    53        relative risk in the Shanghai and Tianjin columns.  It may
    54        be if I read it more carefully I would understand it but,
    55        for instance, I could understand that it might be the total
    56        adjusted relative risk might be higher in one city or lower
    57        in another because it might depend upon the numbers and the
    58        incidents varying in the cities.  But what I appear to have
    59        there is an adjusted relative risk in Shanghai of 2 for
    60        total fat and 2.5 or 3. ----

Prev Next Index