Peter Tennant
@pwgtennant.bsky.social
7.7K followers 1.8K following 2.7K posts
Epidemiologist with an interest in causal inference methods at @universityofleeds.bsky.social. Check out my Intro to Causal Inference Course: https://www.causal.training/ #Epidemiology, #EpiSky, #CausalInference, #CausalSky, #AcademicSky
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
pwgtennant.bsky.social
SAVE THE DATE: The 2026 IEA European Congress of Epidemiology and 70th @socsocmed.bsky.social Annual Conference will take place in London, UK on 8th-11th September 2026!

#EpiSky #EuroEpi2026
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Happy to help however I can - let me know
Reposted by Peter Tennant
georgiatomova.bsky.social
Thank you for giving me the skills to succeed: DAGs and cynicism.
pwgtennant.bsky.social
We learn by doing. People seem to have forgotten that.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
emilymoin.com
I am open to the idea that there are people who don't have and don't want to gain the skills to engage directly with their data but every single day that I do I learn the answer to a question you'd never even think to ask unless you were personally staring into the abyss of an uncleaned dataset.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
georgiatomova.bsky.social
"A UK study involving nearly 20,000 people, found that those who spent at least a total of 120 minutes every week in greenery were significantly more likely to report good health and higher psychological well-being."

is it ✨magic✨ or is it ✨confounding✨
Nature and outdoors can help boost your health - here's how
Spending just 20 minutes in nature can lower blood pressure, heart rate and stress levels.
www.bbc.co.uk
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Hope you have a great time!
Reposted by Peter Tennant
Reposted by Peter Tennant
profannawatts.bsky.social
Lol the Nobels can't even acknowledge women's contribution to discovery. But sure let's acknowledge The Machines.
Headline from an article in Nature this week that states "Prizes must recognize machine contributions to discovery. The future of science will be written by humans and machines together. Awards should reflect that reality."
Reposted by Peter Tennant
pwgtennant.bsky.social
There was a great post by someone saying that choosing to use an LLM for coding is always like choosing to be the hare in the 'hare and tortoise'.

You set off quickly but inevitably run into problems. Eventually your counterfactual tortoise self - who did by building knowledge - walks past.
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Basically the job training intervention was only given to a very specific people, such as those with a low-income, high school dropouts, those with prior criminal records, women on benefits, and Black men. The relationship with race, in particular, is so strong that you cannot control it away.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
danlewer.bsky.social
To be really cynical about it, I'd argue that the people most enthused by LLMs in quantitative research are those who never really liked stats and methodology
pwgtennant.bsky.social
In fairness, teaching causal inference to an audience that don't know basic Epi principles is extremely tough. Because 90%+ of good causal inference is about understanding good study design.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
chelseaparlett.bsky.social
Data Science programs often put too little emphasis on causal inference, and it’s hurting their graduates on the job market! The econometrics people are coming for your jobs lol
pwgtennant.bsky.social
The best thing about everyone using lalonde to test and explore propensity score approaches is the the treatment does not really satisfy the positivity assumption. Yet I almost never see this being explored or mentioned.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
erickscott.bsky.social
Try adding: 'Don't be a sycophant' to your system prompt.

Gemini is more stubborn...
pwgtennant.bsky.social
More important, I personally think that developing educational materials to explain concepts and offer guidance to active researchers does not fall under what is generally classified as 'teaching' by the research ecosystem. Yet it is a crucial. And time consuming. It needs separate funding.
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Shhh. No-one would fund that!
pwgtennant.bsky.social
I haven't managed to publish my own explanation, but an old - somewhat incomplete - version is available as a preprint.

arxiv.org/pdf/2302.01822
arxiv.org
pwgtennant.bsky.social
Has to be said, there's a LOT of disagreement about the solution. And we don't all agree that Pearl's explanation is complete.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
chrischirp.bsky.social
This is a vulnerability map for 8 key bodies: ONS, OBR, Food Standards Agency, MHRA, Met Office, UKRI, Natural England, & UKHSA.

ONS has the most independence. All but ONS have ministerially appointed leadership. 3 could be abolished with no oversight as they have no statutory basis.
6/11
Reposted by Peter Tennant
chrischirp.bsky.social
🧵🚨

The UK’s independent scientific bodies are highly vulnerable to politicisation - over the past 5 months I've been working with @martinmckee.bsky.social to map out their vulnerabilities and it's not good news.

Today our report is published!
www.ucl.ac.uk/policy-lab/n...

1/11
UK’s arm’s length public bodies are highly vulnerable to politicisation
Seven in ten Britons say it is important for top scientific institutions to be independent in exclusive new polling.
www.ucl.ac.uk
pwgtennant.bsky.social
This is exactly the problem! A myopic definition of methodology and a complete ignorance of the need for, and benefits of, translation methodology and meta science.
Reposted by Peter Tennant
pwgtennant.bsky.social
What percentage of the health research funding pot do you think goes on methods and meta science?

Around 2% (if you add together all mention of research design and methodologies across all areas from research.hscni.net/sites/defaul...)

Just 2% spent on the part that underpins EVERYTHING we do.
wpball.com
Reading some interest stats about health research funding in the UK in recent years.

- Only 7% goes to Mental Health research
- Only 5% of that MH funding goes to studies related to prevention
Reposted by Peter Tennant