The original definition of the word “bias,” when it entered the English language in the 16th century, was a diagonal line, and specifically one that cut across the warp or weft of a woven fabric. It later came to mean the tendency of a bowl, the asymmetrically shaped ball-like object used in the game of bowls, to take a curving course when rolled across a lawn, and eventually, among other things, something that produces distortion of a statistical result. Based on a study of its etymology, usages, previous definitions, and sources, I propose the following definition of a bias in research:bias, n. /ˈbʌɪəs/ A systematic distortion, due to a design problem, an interfering factor, or a judgment, that can affect the conception, design, or conduct of a study, or the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or discussion of outcome data, causing erroneous overestimation or underestimation of the probable size of an effect or association [ancient Greek ἐπικάρσιος, crosswise, esp. at right angles, via French biais]This defines the count noun, a bias. The non-count noun, bias, could be defined as a tendency to produce biases.Consider three possible outcomes in an interventional study, investigating, say, a novel medicine. The medicine improves the condition, worsens it, or has no effect. How is each of these outcomes to be explained?In all cases the apparent effect could be real. The drug really does what it appears to do. However, leaving aside the possibility that the positive or negative outcome arose merely by chance, or, in the case of the no-effect result, because the study wasn’t adequately powered to detect a difference, there is always the possibility that a bias or biases of some sort played a part. Perhaps bias enhanced or impaired the response, making it appear that a positive or negative …
Jeffrey K Aronson's articles primarily focus on healthcare and pharmaceutical regulation, with a specific emphasis on medical terminology and language. He also covers legal policy regulations related to the pharmaceutical industry.
Given his focus, Jeffrey is more likely to be interested in expert commentary from professionals well-versed in medical terminology, pharmacology, or linguistic experts who can provide insights into the evolution of medical language or its regulatory aspects. Additionally, professionals knowledgeable about specific legal policies regarding medicines regulation may find success when reaching out to him for potential collaboration.












