Medicine and epidemiology currently dominate the study of the strong association between socioeconomic status and mortality. Socioeconomic status typically is viewed as a causally irrelevant "confounding variable" or as a less critical variable marking only the beginning of a causal chain in which intervening risk factors are given prominence. Yet the association between socioeconomic status and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases and risk factors that are presumed to explain it. This suggests that the effect of socioeconomic status on mortality essentially cannot be understood by reductive explanations that focus on current mechanisms. Accordingly, Link and Phelan (1995) proposed that socioeconomic status is a "fundamental cause" of mortality disparities-that socioeconomic disparities endure despite changing mechanisms because socioeconomic status embodies an array of resources, such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections, that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at any given time. We identified a situation in which resources should be less helpful in prolonging life, and derived the following prediction from the theory: For less preventable causes of death (for which we know little about prevention or treatment), socioeconomic status will be less strongly associated with mortality than for more preventable causes. We tested this hypothesis with the National Longitudinal Mortality Study, which followed Current Population Survey respondents (N = 370,930) for mortality for nine years. Our hypothesis was supported, lending support to the theory of fundamental causes and more generally to the importance of a sociological approach to the study of socioeconomic disparities in mortality.

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project is a federally mandated, population-based case-control study to determine whether breast cancer risk among women in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, NY, is associated with selected environmental exposures, assessed by blood samples, self-reports, and environmental home samples. This report describes the collaborative project's background, rationale, methods, participation rates, and distributions of known risk factors for breast cancer by case-control status, by blood donation, and by availability of environmental home samples. Interview response rates among eligible cases and controls were 82.1% (n = 1,508) and 62.8% (n = 1,556), respectively. Among case and control respondents who completed the interviewer-administered questionnaire, 98.2 and 97.6% self-completed the food frequency questionnaire; 73.0 and 73.3% donated a blood sample; and 93.0 and 83.3% donated a urine sample. Among a random sample of case and control respondents who are long-term residents, samples of dust (83.6 and 83.0%); soil (93.5 and 89.7%); and water (94.3 and 93.9%) were collected. Established risk factors for breast cancer that were found to increase risk among Long Island women include lower parity, late age at first birth, little or no breast feeding, and family history of breast cancer. Factors that were found to be associated with a decreased likelihood that a respondent would donate blood include increasing age and past smoking; factors associated with an increased probability include white or other race, alcohol use, ever breastfed, ever use of hormone replacement therapy, ever use of oral contraceptives, and ever had a mammogram. Long-term residents (defined as 15+ years in the interview home) with environmental home samples did not differ from other long-term residents, although there were a number of differences in risk factor distributions between long-term residents and other participants, as anticipated.

Over two years, we found no difference between aspirin and warfarin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke or death or in the rate of major hemorrhage. Consequently, we regard both warfarin and aspirin as reasonable therapeutic alternatives.