Simpson's paradox poses a challenge in probabilistic inference and decisionmaking. Our study revisits the paradox by re-estimating its frequency with an unbiased data generation process and reaffirms that it is not an artifact of deficient data collection. Thus, it can lead to incorrect recommendations in fields as diverse as statistics, psychology, and artificial intelligence. We show that the paradox can be resolved by assuming a minimal -- though not necessarily observed -- common cause (or screening) variable for the involved random variables. In our approach, conditioning on this minimal common cause establishes the correct association between events, which coincides with the conditioning (i.e., fine-grained) option of the original Simpson paradox. This resolution applies to both discrete cases of binary variables and continuous settings modeled by Gaussian variables. For a non-minimal common cause, the resolution of the paradox is possible, but detailed knowledge of the common cause is required. Our findings extend traditional understandings of the paradox and offer practical guidance for resolving apparent contradictions in probabilistic inference, ultimately enhancing decision-making processes. This point is illustrated by several examples.

With Sunday marking World No Tobacco Day designated by the World Health Organization, experts urge Japan to introduce pictorial warnings about the dangers of smoking on tobacco packages. Many countries require cigarette packages to display images warning of health hazards related to smoking, such as a blackened lung. But there is no such requirement in Japan. A survey by a team at Japan's health ministry has found that warning labels featuring images are more effective in discouraging smoking than text-only warnings. In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

Personalizing digital applications for health behavior change is a promising route to making them more engaging and effective. This especially holds for approaches that adapt to users and their specific states (e.g., motivation, knowledge, wants) over time. However, developing such approaches requires making many design choices, whose effectiveness is difficult to predict from literature and costly to evaluate in practice. In this work, we explore whether large language models (LLMs) can be used out-of-the-box to generate samples of user interactions that provide useful information for training reinforcement learning models for digital behavior change settings. Using real user data from four large behavior change studies as comparison, we show that LLM-generated samples can be useful in the absence of real data. Comparisons to the samples provided by human raters further show that LLM-generated samples reach the performance of human raters. Additional analyses of different prompting strategies including shorter and longer prompt variants, chain-of-thought prompting, and few-shot prompting show that the relative effectiveness of different strategies depends on both the study and the LLM with also relatively large differences between prompt paraphrases alone. We provide recommendations for how LLM-generated samples can be useful in practice.

Study of 320,000 adults reveals there is no safe level of smoking, with even light smokers facing significantly higher risks of heart disease and early death.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) affect millions of people, and relapses are common, requiring multi-session treatments. Access to care is limited, which contributes to the challenge of recovery support. We present \textbf{ChatThero}, an innovative low-cost, multi-session, stressor-aware, and memory-persistent autonomous \emph{language agent} designed to facilitate long-term behavior change and therapeutic support in addiction recovery. Unlike existing work that mostly finetuned large language models (LLMs) on patient-therapist conversation data, ChatThero was trained in a multi-agent simulated environment that mirrors real therapy. We created anonymized patient profiles from recovery communities (e.g., Reddit). We classify patients as \texttt{easy}, \texttt{medium}, and \texttt{difficult}, three scales representing their resistance to recovery. We created an external environment by introducing stressors (e.g., social determinants of health) to simulate real-world situations. We dynamically inject clinically-grounded therapeutic strategies (motivational interview and cognitive behavioral therapy). Our evaluation, conducted by both human (blinded clinicians) and LLM-as-Judge, shows that ChatThero is superior in empathy and clinical relevance. We show that stressor simulation improves robustness of ChatThero. Explicit stressors increase relapse-like setbacks, matching real-world patterns. We evaluate ChatThero with behavioral change metrics. On a 1--5 scale, ChatThero raises \texttt{motivation} by $+1.71$ points (from $2.39$ to $4.10$) and \texttt{confidence} by $+1.67$ points (from $1.52$ to $3.19$), substantially outperforming GPT-5. On \texttt{difficult} patients, ChatThero reaches the success milestone with $26\%$ fewer turns than GPT-5.

This study evaluates causal reasoning in large language models (LLMs) using 99 clinically grounded laboratory test scenarios aligned with Pearl's Ladder of Causation: association, intervention, and counterfactual reasoning. We examined common laboratory tests such as hemoglobin A1c, creatinine, and vitamin D, and paired them with relevant causal factors including age, gender, obesity, and smoking. Two LLMs - GPT-o1 and Llama-3.2-8b-instruct - were tested, with responses evaluated by four medically trained human experts. GPT-o1 demonstrated stronger discriminative performance (AUROC overall = 0.80 +/- 0.12) compared to Llama-3.2-8b-instruct (0.73 +/- 0.15), with higher scores across association (0.75 vs 0.72), intervention (0.84 vs 0.70), and counterfactual reasoning (0.84 vs 0.69). Sensitivity (0.90 vs 0.84) and specificity (0.93 vs 0.80) were also greater for GPT-o1, with reasoning ratings showing similar trends. Both models performed best on intervention questions and worst on counterfactuals, particularly in altered outcome scenarios. These findings suggest GPT-o1 provides more consistent causal reasoning, but refinement is required before adoption in high-stakes clinical applications.

The conversational capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) suggest that they may be able to perform as automated talk therapists. It is crucial to know if these systems would be effective and adhere to known standards. We present a counsellor chatbot that focuses on motivating tobacco smokers to quit smoking. It uses a state-of-the-art LLM and a widely applied therapeutic approach called Motivational Interviewing (MI), and was evolved in collaboration with clinician-scientists with expertise in MI. We also describe and validate an automated assessment of both the chatbot's adherence to MI and client responses. The chatbot was tested on 106 participants, and their confidence that they could succeed in quitting smoking was measured before the conversation and one week later. Participants' confidence increased by an average of 1.7 on a 0-10 scale. The automated assessment of the chatbot showed adherence to MI standards in 98% of utterances, higher than human counsellors. The chatbot scored well on a participant-reported metric of perceived empathy but lower than typical human counsellors. Furthermore, participants' language indicated a good level of motivation to change, a key goal in MI. These results suggest that the automation of talk therapy with a modern LLM has promise.

Australia and the UK have developed contrasting approaches to the regulation of electronic cigarettes, with - broadly speaking - Australia adopting a relatively restrictive approach and the UK adopting a more permissive approach. Notably, these divergent policies were developed from the same broad evidence base. In this paper, to investigate differences in how the two jurisdictions manage and present evidence, we developed and evaluated a Large Language Model-based sentence classifier to perform automated analyses of electronic cigarette-related policy documents drawn from official Australian and UK legislative processes (109 documents in total). Specifically, we utilized GPT-4 to automatically classify sentences based on whether they contained claims that e-cigarettes were broadly helpful or harmful for public health. Our LLM-based classifier achieved an F-score of 0.9. Further, when applying the classifier to our entire sentence-level corpus, we found that Australian legislative documents show a much higher proportion of harmful statements, and a lower proportion of helpful statements compared to the expected values, with the opposite holding for the UK. In conclusion, this work utilized an LLM-based approach to provide evidence to support the contention that - drawing on the same evidence base - Australian ENDS-related policy documents emphasize the harms associated with ENDS products and UK policy documents emphasize the benefits. Further, our approach provides a starting point for using LLM-based methods to investigate the complex relationship between evidence and health policy formation.

Tested's Adam Savage paired up with Medtronic to offer his commentary on what can contribute to a longer lifespan, including possible differences between men's and women's health. Former "MythBusters" star Adam Savage is exploring the science of longevity, asking how lifestyle choices, stress and even sleep affect how long we live. Savage, now a YouTube creator and head of the channel Tested, has partnered with health technology company Medtronic to engage in discussions about longevity. While not a researcher himself, he has taken a deep dive into scientific insights from experts and reflected on his own experiences. "Longevity has always been a fascination for me," Savage told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview.