Hill's Criteria of Strength is the only criteria that must be met 100% for a causal relationship to be possible.
The Criteria of strength is Hill's first test for causation. He stated that the likelihood of an association being causative increases with the size of the connection between exposure and disease. Hill used Percival Pott's investigation into the prevalence of scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps to highlight this issue. Since the correlation between that occupation and sickness was so strong (almost 200 times more than in other jobs), it was concluded that chimney soot was probably a contributing factor. On the other hand, Hill argued that minor connections are less indicative of causation since they are more likely to be explained by other underlying factors (such as bias or confounding).
To evaluate possibly causative associations, it is essential to define what is meant by a "strong" correlation. Scientists may now distinguish between strong and weak associations using more mathematically sound criteria than Hill had in mind because of developments in statistical theory and computing capacity. Strength is no longer just understood as an association's magnitude. Furthermore, multi-factorial disorders and the existence of determinant risk variables that are tiny in magnitude but statistically significant have received more attention from researchers. The recognized standard for determining the strength of an observed correlation and, hence, its potential causation, is statistical significance today rather than the magnitude of the association.
To read more about Strength visit https://brainly.com/question/2367767
#SPJ4
