Evidence literacy / Foundation
Verify the evidence, not the claim
Reading a study: sample size and power, effect size versus p-value, confidence intervals, and the evidence hierarchy, so a grey-market claim can be classified as supported or not-enough-evidence.
Course overview
A foundational course in scientific methodology, study design hierarchies, statistical power, p-value interpretation, GRADE evidence grading, and bias detection.
- Track
- Evidence literacy
- Level
- Foundation
- Lessons
- 10
- Estimated duration
- 60 min
Complete course curriculum (10 lessons)
-
Lesson 1
The Hierarchy of Evidence & Scientific Method
- Learning objective:
- Understand the evidentiary hierarchy from mechanistic hypotheses to randomized controlled trials.
- Core mechanism:
- Evidence ranges in methodological strength: expert opinion -> in vitro models -> animal studies -> observational cohorts -> randomized trials -> systematic reviews.
- Key takeaway:
- Higher evidentiary tiers reduce confounding and systematic bias, providing greater causal certainty.
-
Lesson 2
In Vitro, In Vivo & In Silico Research Models: Scope & Limits
- Learning objective:
- Critically evaluate model systems and translational validity boundaries.
- Core mechanism:
- In vitro assays isolate biochemical pathways; animal models introduce whole-organism physiology but differ in metabolism, receptor distribution, and pharmacokinetics from humans.
- Key takeaway:
- Mechanistic findings in cultured cells or rodents cannot be claimed as proven human outcomes.
-
Lesson 3
Observational Studies vs Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
- Learning objective:
- Examine confounding, selection bias, and the power of randomization.
- Core mechanism:
- Observational studies identify correlations but are vulnerable to healthy user bias and unmeasured confounders. Randomization balances baseline characteristics, enabling causal inference.
- Key takeaway:
- Correlation in observational data does not establish biological causality.
-
Lesson 4
Estimands, Endpoints & Surrogate vs Clinical Outcomes
- Learning objective:
- Differentiate laboratory biomarker changes from validated clinical endpoints.
- Core mechanism:
- A surrogate endpoint (e.g. LDL-C, blood pressure) is a laboratory measure intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint (e.g. myocardial infarction, survival). Surrogates do not always translate to clinical benefit.
- Key takeaway:
- A positive change in a surrogate biomarker does not automatically prove clinical outcome efficacy.
-
Lesson 5
Statistical Power, Sample Size & Effect Magnitude
- Learning objective:
- Analyze Type I (alpha) and Type II (beta) errors and statistical power (1 - beta).
- Core mechanism:
- Statistical power is the probability of detecting a true effect when one exists. Underpowered studies with small sample sizes produce high false-positive rates and inflated effect sizes (the winner’s curse).
- Key takeaway:
- Small study sample sizes undermine reliability and inflate reported effect magnitudes.
-
Lesson 6
P-Values, False Discovery Rates & Confidence Intervals
- Learning objective:
- Interpret p-values correctly as conditional probabilities, not effect sizes or posterior truths.
- Core mechanism:
- A p-value is the probability of obtaining test results at least as extreme as observed, assuming the null hypothesis is true. It does not measure effect size or truth probability; 95% confidence intervals convey effect magnitude and precision.
- Key takeaway:
- Statistical significance (p < 0.05) is not biological or clinical significance.
-
Lesson 7
Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses & Forest Plots
- Learning objective:
- Read meta-analytic forest plots, pooled effect sizes, and heterogeneity (I^2 statistic).
- Core mechanism:
- Meta-analyses mathematically combine effect sizes from multiple studies. The I^2 statistic quantifies heterogeneity; I^2 > 50% indicates substantial inconsistency among included trials.
- Key takeaway:
- Meta-analyses are only as reliable as their constituent studies; pooling biased studies produces biased results.
-
Lesson 8
The GRADE Framework: Rating Certainty of Evidence
- Learning objective:
- Apply GRADE criteria to evaluate High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low evidence certainty.
- Core mechanism:
- GRADE assesses five downgrading domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. High-quality RCTs start at High but can be downgraded.
- Key takeaway:
- GRADE provides an objective, transparent framework for rating confidence in effect estimates.
-
Lesson 9
Identifying Methodological Bias, Confounding & P-Hacking
- Learning objective:
- Detect publication bias (funnel plots), selective outcome reporting, and HARKing.
- Core mechanism:
- Funnel plot asymmetry indicates missing negative studies due to publication bias. P-hacking involves testing multiple hypotheses without statistical correction until p < 0.05 is found.
- Key takeaway:
- Skeptical evidence evaluation checks for preregistered protocols and symmetrical reporting.
-
Lesson 10
Capstone: Claim-Level Auditing & Claims Collapse Protocol
- Learning objective:
- Perform an adversarial audit of scientific literature claims, mapping statements to primary receipts.
- Core mechanism:
- Deconstructs published claims into atomic statements, tagging each as: direct human observation, derived calculation, mechanistic inference, or unproven assertion.
- Key takeaway:
- Claim-level adjudication prevents mechanistic speculation from being presented as established clinical truth.