Jeremy Labrecque
@jeremylabrecque.bsky.social
Canadian epidemiologist and causal inference person at Erasmus Medical Center. Big fan of Northern Expsoure and Car Talk.
jeremylabrecque.org
jeremylabrecque.org
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Here's a question for the causal inference people: What is your take on causality without counterfactuals and/or causal inference without counterfactuals?
a cartoon of a man holding a box that says ' w ' on it
Alt: The Farnsworth Parabox
media.tenor.com
January 5, 2026 at 1:18 PM
Here's a question for the causal inference people: What is your take on causality without counterfactuals and/or causal inference without counterfactuals?
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
I reckon CI does two good things to a field, neither of which are philosophical or even technical: first, it obliges it to admit it actually wants causal knowledge. And second, demands it says what that knowledge amounts to in concrete interventional terms (or admit that it doesn't quite know).
January 4, 2026 at 10:14 PM
I reckon CI does two good things to a field, neither of which are philosophical or even technical: first, it obliges it to admit it actually wants causal knowledge. And second, demands it says what that knowledge amounts to in concrete interventional terms (or admit that it doesn't quite know).
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Books I read this year that were particularly good I will never do a top ten list you can't make me rank art.
December 29, 2025 at 6:20 AM
Books I read this year that were particularly good I will never do a top ten list you can't make me rank art.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
It has a name now 😜
Many thanks to Ken for agreeing to put his good name to my...artwork. The image is in the public domain (CC 0), but citations to the linked documents are warmly welcomed.
✅ zenodo.org/records/1808...
✅ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24452418/
Many thanks to Ken for agreeing to put his good name to my...artwork. The image is in the public domain (CC 0), but citations to the linked documents are warmly welcomed.
✅ zenodo.org/records/1808...
✅ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24452418/
December 29, 2025 at 11:19 AM
It has a name now 😜
Many thanks to Ken for agreeing to put his good name to my...artwork. The image is in the public domain (CC 0), but citations to the linked documents are warmly welcomed.
✅ zenodo.org/records/1808...
✅ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24452418/
Many thanks to Ken for agreeing to put his good name to my...artwork. The image is in the public domain (CC 0), but citations to the linked documents are warmly welcomed.
✅ zenodo.org/records/1808...
✅ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24452418/
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Poverty is a policy choice. Concentrated wealth is a policy choice. Inequality is a policy choice. None of it is natural or inevitable. Remember: We have the power to build a system that serves the many, not the powerful few.
December 28, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Poverty is a policy choice. Concentrated wealth is a policy choice. Inequality is a policy choice. None of it is natural or inevitable. Remember: We have the power to build a system that serves the many, not the powerful few.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
I don't think the claim is puritanical, to be honest. X is a digital platform built on network effects, so every user who posts there creates a negative externality by amplifying its owner, who is openly hostile to democratic rule and the Western liberal order.
I’m not going to argue that anyone still using X is an enabler/collaborator. The claim is puritanical. I abandoned X about a year ago and will never go back. But I’m not a vegan.
I wish academic bsky was more like ac twitter of a decade ago. But that version of the internet is (maybe forever) dead.
I wish academic bsky was more like ac twitter of a decade ago. But that version of the internet is (maybe forever) dead.
December 26, 2025 at 10:53 AM
I don't think the claim is puritanical, to be honest. X is a digital platform built on network effects, so every user who posts there creates a negative externality by amplifying its owner, who is openly hostile to democratic rule and the Western liberal order.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
One of the major problems with epidemiologic research is that we focus so much on the statistics that many (most?) researchers think that "doing research" means running the regression model and not the actual research part, which is everything described in this historian's post. 1/n
December 22, 2025 at 12:03 PM
One of the major problems with epidemiologic research is that we focus so much on the statistics that many (most?) researchers think that "doing research" means running the regression model and not the actual research part, which is everything described in this historian's post. 1/n
These tools would be useful if they help the researcher achieve equal or better quality result faster or with fewer resources.
But we have no idea whether they do that. No idea. And little idea of other potentially negative impacts of these tools like eroding our ability to think…
But we have no idea whether they do that. No idea. And little idea of other potentially negative impacts of these tools like eroding our ability to think…
Curious about using artificial intelligence to boost your research? Here are the programs you shouldn’t miss
go.nature.com/48Z7vjr
go.nature.com/48Z7vjr
AI for research: the ultimate guide to choosing the right tool
Curious about using artificial intelligence to boost your research? Here are the programs you shouldn’t miss.
go.nature.com
December 22, 2025 at 11:36 AM
These tools would be useful if they help the researcher achieve equal or better quality result faster or with fewer resources.
But we have no idea whether they do that. No idea. And little idea of other potentially negative impacts of these tools like eroding our ability to think…
But we have no idea whether they do that. No idea. And little idea of other potentially negative impacts of these tools like eroding our ability to think…
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
suspect a big reason why many academics and others who work in areas where getting facts RIGHT is key are disinterested in using LLMs for research:
they’ve tried it, they keep noticing major errors in output, and they conclude that having to verify all that doesn’t actually save them time.
they’ve tried it, they keep noticing major errors in output, and they conclude that having to verify all that doesn’t actually save them time.
December 21, 2025 at 4:16 PM
suspect a big reason why many academics and others who work in areas where getting facts RIGHT is key are disinterested in using LLMs for research:
they’ve tried it, they keep noticing major errors in output, and they conclude that having to verify all that doesn’t actually save them time.
they’ve tried it, they keep noticing major errors in output, and they conclude that having to verify all that doesn’t actually save them time.
Me, in many talks: Use causal language for this type of thing and use associational language for this other type of thing.
Someone, inevitably: Why are you trying to ban the word association?
Me: I literally just said "use associational language...".
Someone, inevitably: Why are you trying to ban the word association?
Me: I literally just said "use associational language...".
December 19, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Me, in many talks: Use causal language for this type of thing and use associational language for this other type of thing.
Someone, inevitably: Why are you trying to ban the word association?
Me: I literally just said "use associational language...".
Someone, inevitably: Why are you trying to ban the word association?
Me: I literally just said "use associational language...".
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
As an editor I often see authors fall into a trap of stressing some fancy statistical technique for estimating causal effects. Often neglected are the necessary assumptions to map the data to the estimand. @pausalz.bsky.social and I wrote about it here www.bmj.com/content/391/...
#EpiSky
#EpiSky
Causal inference is hard, and advanced statistical analysis is not enough
Health researchers need to fully understand the underlying assumptions to uncover cause and effect. Timothy Feeney and Paul Zivich explain
Physicians ask, answer, and interpret myriad causal question...
www.bmj.com
December 19, 2025 at 2:12 PM
As an editor I often see authors fall into a trap of stressing some fancy statistical technique for estimating causal effects. Often neglected are the necessary assumptions to map the data to the estimand. @pausalz.bsky.social and I wrote about it here www.bmj.com/content/391/...
#EpiSky
#EpiSky
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
🚨Job alert! We're hiring experienced programmer to analyze national Medicaid claims data, along w/ colleague Ari Ne'eman @hsph.harvard.edu. Details & application instructions: careers.harvard.edu/job/statisti...
@societyforepi.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social @ashecon.bsky.social @apha.org
@societyforepi.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social @ashecon.bsky.social @apha.org
Statistical Analyst/Programmer
careers.harvard.edu
December 18, 2025 at 7:39 PM
🚨Job alert! We're hiring experienced programmer to analyze national Medicaid claims data, along w/ colleague Ari Ne'eman @hsph.harvard.edu. Details & application instructions: careers.harvard.edu/job/statisti...
@societyforepi.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social @ashecon.bsky.social @apha.org
@societyforepi.bsky.social @popassocamerica.bsky.social @ashecon.bsky.social @apha.org
I wish we were as skeptical that we've found artificial intelligence as we are skeptical that we’ve found alien intelligence.
December 18, 2025 at 12:44 PM
I wish we were as skeptical that we've found artificial intelligence as we are skeptical that we’ve found alien intelligence.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Yeah. And before this, half of reviewers were submitting trivial, short reviews that either said "looks good to me" or "this is excrement". This is why reviews should be part of the public record for any paper.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance
Policies should reflect the ‘new reality’ of researchers’ increasing reliance on tools that can summarize manuscripts and draft reports.
www.nature.com
December 16, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Yeah. And before this, half of reviewers were submitting trivial, short reviews that either said "looks good to me" or "this is excrement". This is why reviews should be part of the public record for any paper.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that causal inference mak you more certain about causation.
It sometimes can but often it just shows you all the ways your study could be spectacularly wrong.
It sometimes can but often it just shows you all the ways your study could be spectacularly wrong.
December 10, 2025 at 9:01 PM
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that causal inference mak you more certain about causation.
It sometimes can but often it just shows you all the ways your study could be spectacularly wrong.
It sometimes can but often it just shows you all the ways your study could be spectacularly wrong.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Such an important piece highlighting the impacts of recent events on trans and nb researchers. We are at risk of losing lot of incredible talent from the academic pipeline. The ripple effects will be felt for decades.
Early-career trans researchers reconsider their futures amid lost funding and fear
The chaos created by the freezing and termination of billions of dollars of research grants has left trans academics especially vulnerable.
www.statnews.com
December 10, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Such an important piece highlighting the impacts of recent events on trans and nb researchers. We are at risk of losing lot of incredible talent from the academic pipeline. The ripple effects will be felt for decades.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
Rewatched some Star Trek tonight.
Still wild how a show about warp drives and weird nebulae ends up teaching the cleanest lessons about being human.
Every episode says the same thing in its own way:
‘Be curious. Be brave.
…Try not to fire phasers unless you really have to.”
Still wild how a show about warp drives and weird nebulae ends up teaching the cleanest lessons about being human.
Every episode says the same thing in its own way:
‘Be curious. Be brave.
…Try not to fire phasers unless you really have to.”
December 10, 2025 at 10:20 AM
Rewatched some Star Trek tonight.
Still wild how a show about warp drives and weird nebulae ends up teaching the cleanest lessons about being human.
Every episode says the same thing in its own way:
‘Be curious. Be brave.
…Try not to fire phasers unless you really have to.”
Still wild how a show about warp drives and weird nebulae ends up teaching the cleanest lessons about being human.
Every episode says the same thing in its own way:
‘Be curious. Be brave.
…Try not to fire phasers unless you really have to.”
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
How often do you see in an intro section the authors making a clear distinction bw causal papers they cite and observational ones? All seem to be magically causal. 🤔
in psych, whole subfields have decided to simply skirt the issue, so the causal inference happens in the introduction of the next paper that cites the "totally-not-causal-I-swear" paper and of course absolutely interprets it causally 🥲
The Taboo Against Explicit Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Psychology - Michael P. Grosz, Julia M. Rohrer, Felix Thoemmes, 2020
Causal inference is a central goal of research. However, most psychologists refrain from explicitly addressing causal research questions and avoid drawing causa...
journals.sagepub.com
December 7, 2025 at 3:52 PM
How often do you see in an intro section the authors making a clear distinction bw causal papers they cite and observational ones? All seem to be magically causal. 🤔
We don’t just assume new treatments will work, we test them thoroughly.
Why do we think we can just throw AI at a problem and it will just work?
Why do we think we can just throw AI at a problem and it will just work?
December 5, 2025 at 12:22 PM
We don’t just assume new treatments will work, we test them thoroughly.
Why do we think we can just throw AI at a problem and it will just work?
Why do we think we can just throw AI at a problem and it will just work?
People rarely check the positivity assumption but I’d say 5% of the time it shows something strange is going on that we wouldn’t have caught otherwise.
December 4, 2025 at 8:01 AM
People rarely check the positivity assumption but I’d say 5% of the time it shows something strange is going on that we wouldn’t have caught otherwise.
I could almost tell you the day AI was incorporated into autocorrect. The change was that drastic. Started automatically changing the word “the” to tge. (and right now it autocorrected to thé even though I’m using an English keyboard
My favourite example of this is Apple autocorrect: a software demonstrably getting worse every single passing day.
The product has obviously degraded. I expect more typos more often. I expect correctly spelled words to be changed automatically to other words. Sometimes it just randomly adds a word.
The product has obviously degraded. I expect more typos more often. I expect correctly spelled words to be changed automatically to other words. Sometimes it just randomly adds a word.
December 1, 2025 at 4:00 PM
I could almost tell you the day AI was incorporated into autocorrect. The change was that drastic. Started automatically changing the word “the” to tge. (and right now it autocorrected to thé even though I’m using an English keyboard
Recently I heard someone say “we ran an RCT based on our associational studies and unfortunately found null results.”
How did we get in a place where we don't see the problem in using associational evidence (which cannot even say the word cause) to inform RCTs.
How did we get in a place where we don't see the problem in using associational evidence (which cannot even say the word cause) to inform RCTs.
November 29, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Recently I heard someone say “we ran an RCT based on our associational studies and unfortunately found null results.”
How did we get in a place where we don't see the problem in using associational evidence (which cannot even say the word cause) to inform RCTs.
How did we get in a place where we don't see the problem in using associational evidence (which cannot even say the word cause) to inform RCTs.
If you have a manuscript ready to submit in mid-December do you:
a) Submit in December (when editors are bombarded with manuscripts)
b) Hold off until mid-January to let the editors have a damn holiday already
a) Submit in December (when editors are bombarded with manuscripts)
b) Hold off until mid-January to let the editors have a damn holiday already
November 28, 2025 at 11:30 AM
If you have a manuscript ready to submit in mid-December do you:
a) Submit in December (when editors are bombarded with manuscripts)
b) Hold off until mid-January to let the editors have a damn holiday already
a) Submit in December (when editors are bombarded with manuscripts)
b) Hold off until mid-January to let the editors have a damn holiday already
If the world is as complex as advocates for complexity research say (and it may be), then everything is hopelessly confounded and we can't estimate the parameters that you would plug into a complex model.
November 27, 2025 at 2:37 PM
If the world is as complex as advocates for complexity research say (and it may be), then everything is hopelessly confounded and we can't estimate the parameters that you would plug into a complex model.
Reposted by Jeremy Labrecque
When fixed effects aren't fixed...
Important work by @dlmillimet.bsky.social and Marc Bellemare that should influence econometric practice.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Important work by @dlmillimet.bsky.social and Marc Bellemare that should influence econometric practice.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
On the (Mis) Use of the Fixed Effects Estimator
Data that span multiple units and time periods allow controlling for time-invariant heterogeneity correlated with the covariates. While researchers can do this in different ways, the fixed effects es...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 26, 2025 at 3:14 PM
When fixed effects aren't fixed...
Important work by @dlmillimet.bsky.social and Marc Bellemare that should influence econometric practice.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Important work by @dlmillimet.bsky.social and Marc Bellemare that should influence econometric practice.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...