The article “Do Migraines Lower Breast Cancer Risk” focuses on a study conducted by researchers at the Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington. This was the first study to examine the probable connection between migraines and brain cancer. It was indicated from the study that women with a history of migraines have up to a 30 percent fewer chance of getting breast cancer compared to women with no migraines. The researchers studied the level of estrogen to the risk of breast cancer. It is speculated that lower levels of estrogen are linked to migraines. This would lower the risk of breast cancer because breast cancer has been correlated with high levels of estrogen. The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the number of visits to the doctor were not considered in this study; these variables can increase or decrease the risk ofbreast cancer. For example, the drugs used for the migraine may be the factor that decreases the chance of getting breast cancer rather than the migraine itself.
1) What specific claim(s) does the news article make about the study? That is, what did the news article say was discovered? For each claim, indicate if the original paper actually makes that claim.
The news article claims that a history of migraine decreases the risk of getting breast cancer by 30 percent compared to individuals that do not have a history of migraine. It was also stated in the paper that additional factors have to be considered; for instance, if taking NSAIDS decreases the risk of getting cancer. In this news article, the reporter clearly portrays all the claim made in the paper.
2) Most technical papers have a "Conclusions" section (often labeled as such). Find this section. Are the items which the original authors highlighted as conclusions of their study discussed in the news article? Indicate "yes" or "no", giving your evidence.
The conclusion of the paper was that a history of migraine is linked with a reduced chance of getting breast cancer. Another point that as made in the conclusion was that more studies should be conducted in order to confirm the relationship between migraine history and the risk of break cancer because this was the first study to focus on this association. Both of these highlighted items from the paper was mentioned in the article. However, the article failed to mention the type of breast cancer in which the risk is reduced. The paper mentions that the risk of breast cancer is decreased, especially amoung ER+/PR+ ductal and lobular carcinomas.
3) Most technical papers will describe the uncertainty around their conclusions and discoveries, often discussed in a section labeled "Discussion." Does the original paper describe the degree of confidence the scientists have in their discoveries? If so, describe this, and indicate whether or not the news article also discusses the degree of uncertainty.
The original paper discussed the limitations and worries about their discoveries. One limitation was the subjects self reported their migraine history; therefore, there is a possibility of bias. Another limitation was that the information on migraines was only obtained from people diagnosed by a health professional. The researchers were worried about their lack of knowledge concerning migraines and its relationship to the reproductive events. The news article discusses the degree of uncertainty. The article seemed to have focused a lot on the uncertainties of the study. For example, the article states that the women surveyed were not asked about the drugs they used for their migraine s. If they did use a drug, it could have had an effect on the outcome of the research.
4) It is the job of the news reporter to make whatever item they are reporting on relevant to some larger issue or set of issues; in contrast, a technical paper is often much more focused and may not deal with broader implications of the work. Do you find examples of the reporter discussing "broader implications" not present in the original paper? If so, describe them. Additionally, if so, indicate whether you (as a reader) can see that this broader implication actually does follow from the conclusions of the study.
The reporter does not discuss the “broader implications” of the work in the article. The reporter sticks to the main points of the study and cites most of them.
5) In some technical paper the original scientists might describes previous contradictory work of previous research (often in the "Introduction"), which they presumably consider their new work has overturned. If so, does the news article reflect that this study has resulted in the rejection of a previous hypothesis?
This is the first study to examine the relationship between migraines and breast cancer; therefore, there is no previous contradictory work of previous research.
6) Journalists very often couch science news items as "debates between equal sides", even if the weight of the evidence is not equal. Does the news article discuss alternative hypotheses that are not mentioned in the original paper? If so, does the news article give a measure of what degree of evidential support exists for either of the alternative models?
An alternative hypothesis that is mentioned in the article but not in the study was that genes may be the connection between migraines and breast cancer. The article does not state any evidence; however, the hypothesis was stated by neurologist Andrew Charles, the director of the headache research program at UCLA. He stated that the relationship between hormones and migraines are too complicated.