摘要翻译：
本文讨论了在涉及基于流行病学（或更一般的观察或基于人口的）信息的统计输入的法律案件中确定“因果关系”的不同需要和方法。我们将“原因”分为三种说法：第一种说法涉及提供或允许接触的疏忽，第二种说法涉及“原因”，因为它是通过科学证明在人群中接触导致结果的风险增加而显示出来的，第三种说法认为“原因”可能适用于基于前两种说法的个人原告。以人口为导向的“原因”是统计学家通常处理的问题，我们提出了布拉德福德·希尔方法的一个变体，以在观察框架中测试这种因果关系，并讨论了如何在法律背景下考虑这样一系列系统的测试。我们回顾了一些目前使用概率陈述的法律方法，并将这些方法与这里发展的科学方法论联系起来。特别是，我们提供了一种方法，既可以理解个体结果是在概率平衡上引起的，也可以理解对这种结果的物质贡献。统计术语和诸如“概率平衡的证明”或“因果关系”等术语的法律用法很容易混淆，这主要是由于类似的语言描述了不同的概念；然而，我们的结论是，仔细的分析可以确定和区分那些只需要法律决定的领域和那些科学方法有用的领域。
---
英文标题：
《Causality and Association: The Statistical and Legal Approaches》
---
作者：
K. Mengersen, S. A. Moynihan, R. L. Tweedie
---
最新提交年份：
2007
---
分类信息：

一级分类：Statistics        统计学
二级分类：Methodology        方法论
分类描述：Design, Surveys, Model Selection, Multiple Testing, Multivariate Methods, Signal and Image Processing, Time Series, Smoothing, Spatial Statistics, Survival Analysis, Nonparametric and Semiparametric Methods
设计，调查，模型选择，多重检验，多元方法，信号和图像处理，时间序列，平滑，空间统计，生存分析，非参数和半参数方法
--

---
英文摘要：
  This paper discusses different needs and approaches to establishing ``causation'' that are relevant in legal cases involving statistical input based on epidemiological (or more generally observational or population-based) information. We distinguish between three versions of ``cause'': the first involves negligence in providing or allowing exposure, the second involves ``cause'' as it is shown through a scientifically proved increased risk of an outcome from the exposure in a population, and the third considers ``cause'' as it might apply to an individual plaintiff based on the first two. The population-oriented ``cause'' is that commonly addressed by statisticians, and we propose a variation on the Bradford Hill approach to testing such causality in an observational framework, and discuss how such a systematic series of tests might be considered in a legal context. We review some current legal approaches to using probabilistic statements, and link these with the scientific methodology as developed here. In particular, we provide an approach both to the idea of individual outcomes being caused on a balance of probabilities, and to the idea of material contribution to such outcomes. Statistical terminology and legal usage of terms such as ``proof on the balance of probabilities'' or ``causation'' can easily become confused, largely due to similar language describing dissimilar concepts; we conclude, however, that a careful analysis can identify and separate those areas in which a legal decision alone is required and those areas in which scientific approaches are useful.
---
PDF链接：
https://arxiv.org/pdf/710.4459