Correct interpretation done but eventually clarified as incorrect

Hello LT of AI4M,

Course 3 of week 1, Section Average Treatment Effect

There was a clarification page before the video about causal inference

mentioning that it was harm and not benefit.

But from what I know causal inference means the process of drawing the conclusion that a specific treatment was the cause of the effect that was observed.

So the heart attack was reason treatment was done and there was no treatment done as there was no heart attack, hence mentioned as benefit which is perfectly correct. But somehow it has been mentioned as harm in the next slide which is incorrect.

I do not know why this confusion had occurred and this needs to be corrected.

Ok I understood Pranav is explaining that with treatment if patient still gets heart attack and without treatment doesn’t get the heart attack, but I think he is explaining incorrectly. It is cause to effect not effect to cause. So his explanation is incorrect but the tab where it mentions Benefit is correct.

The randomized controlled trial is the most rigorous and robust research method of determining whether a cause–effect relation exists between an intervention and an outcome.


Hi @Deepti_Prasad,

It’s been a while since I have been familiar with the content of AI4M. But all the clarification reading items were put after careful reconsideration and reviewing.