about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,975 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Oklahoma City and the second variable is Asthma attacks in American children.  The chart goes from 1997 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Turns out, with the air getting cleaner, the local dust bunnies were feeling insecure and decided to pack their bags and leave town. These airborne allergens just couldn't handle the newfound freshness. And with the dust bunnies gone, the asthma attacks hopped right along with them. Remember, a wheeze-free city is just a clean-sweep away!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] In Oklahoma City, a hazy sky looms over towering buildings as children run and play outside. A group of kids grimace and clutch their chests as they gasp for air, while in the vicinity, a flashing red air quality alert sign catches the eye on a street corner. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Unhealthy air quality in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cute 2D animation Cyber folk Cubism A photo-realistic image Cute cartoon
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Unhealthy air quality in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Oklahoma City, a hazy sky hangs over tall buildings as children play outside. A group of kids cough and wheeze as they struggle to catch their breath, while nearby, a red air quality alert sign flashes on a street corner.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In Oklahoma City, a hazy sky hangs over tall buildings as children play outside. A group of kids cough and wheeze as they struggle to catch their breath, while nearby, a red air quality alert sign flashes on a street corner. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] In Oklahoma City, a hazy sky looms over towering buildings as children run and play outside. A group of kids grimace and clutch their chests as they gasp for air, while in the vicinity, a flashing red air quality alert sign catches the eye on a street corner.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Air pollution in Oklahoma City caused Asthma attacks in American children to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children

Journal of Ecological Health and Environmental Well-being

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and National Center for Health Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for 1997 to 2019.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ah, the winds of progress! They carry many things, including, unfortunately, pollutants that can wreak havoc on our respiratory systems. In recent years, the impact of air pollution on human health has become a hot topic, and rightly so. The wheezes, coughs, and struggles for breath that accompany asthma attacks are no laughing matter, especially for the millions of children affected each year. As we dive into this wheezy analysis, let's take a deep breath and explore the complex relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and its potential to trigger asthma attacks in American children.

It's no secret that air pollution can make it difficult for everyone, especially children, to breathe easy. The mix of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds in the air can lead to respiratory distress and exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. We can't help but think that if clean air was a currency, we'd all be whee-lthy—pun intended! However, the serious implications for children's health cannot be overstated.

The aim of this research is to shine a spotlight on a pressing public health issue and inject a breath of fresh air into the discourse surrounding air quality and pediatric asthma. We've all heard the old chestnut that knowledge is power, and the findings of this study aim to empower policymakers and stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and mitigate the impact of asthma on the youngest members of society. After all, when it comes to protecting our children from the harmful effects of air pollution, we can't afford to take things lightly—like a good dad joke, it's nothing to wheeze at!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the winds of progress! They carry many things, including, unfortunately, pollutants that can wreak havoc on our respiratory systems. In recent years, the impact of air pollution on human health has become a hot topic, and rightly so. The wheezes, coughs, and struggles for breath that accompany asthma attacks are no laughing matter, especially for the millions of children affected each year. As we dive into this wheezy analysis, let's take a deep breath and explore the complex relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and its potential to trigger asthma attacks in American children.
It's no secret that air pollution can make it difficult for everyone, especially children, to breathe easy. The mix of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds in the air can lead to respiratory distress and exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. We can't help but think that if clean air was a currency, we'd all be whee-lthy—pun intended! However, the serious implications for children's health cannot be overstated.
The aim of this research is to shine a spotlight on a pressing public health issue and inject a breath of fresh air into the discourse surrounding air quality and pediatric asthma. We've all heard the old chestnut that knowledge is power, and the findings of this study aim to empower policymakers and stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and mitigate the impact of asthma on the youngest members of society. After all, when it comes to protecting our children from the harmful effects of air pollution, we can't afford to take things lightly—like a good dad joke, it's nothing to wheeze at!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between air pollution and asthma prevalence has captured the attention of researchers for decades. Smith, in their seminal work "Air Quality and Pediatric Asthma: A Comprehensive Review," highlighted the multifaceted relationship between various air pollutants and the incidence of asthma attacks in children. Their findings underscore the detrimental impact of particulate matter and ozone on respiratory health, painting a vivid picture of the wheezy challenges faced by young asthma sufferers. However, as we delve deeper into the literature, it becomes apparent that there's more to this wheezy conundrum than meets the eye.

Doe and Jones, in their exhaustive meta-analysis "The Wheeze Factor: Unraveling the Link Between Air Pollution and Childhood Asthma," corroborate the substantial evidence pointing to a positive association between air pollution levels and pediatric asthma exacerbations. Their comprehensive study integrates data from various regions, shedding light on the global impact of poor air quality on children's respiratory well-being. The wheeze-inducing implications of their findings cannot be overstated.

Now, let's take a comedic detour and examine some non-fiction books related to the topic. "The Air We Breathe: A Pollution Primer" by John Smith offers a comprehensive overview of air quality issues and their impacts on health, providing readers with a breath of knowledge on the subject. In a similar vein, "The Asthma Survival Guide" by Jane Doe offers practical tips and insights for managing asthma and navigating environmental triggers, because sometimes a wheeze is just a wheeze.

As we shift gears into the realm of fiction, we encounter intriguing titles that seem oddly relevant. "The Invisible Air: A Tale of Pollution and Peril" by A.J. Green imagines a world where polluted air poses an invisible threat to children's health, weaving a cautionary tale that hits close to home. Meanwhile, "The Wheezing Wonders: Adventures in Asthma-Land" by E. Brown presents a whimsical portrayal of a fictional realm where characters grapple with airborne challenges in a lighthearted but astute manner.

In a nod to internet culture, it's worth mentioning the meme "Distracted Boyfriend" – a lighthearted yet relatable representation of the way air pollutants distract our respiratory systems from their usual healthy rhythms. And of course, who could forget the classic "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" meme? When it comes to air pollution exacerbating childhood asthma, ain't nobody got time for that – it's a serious matter that demands attention!

In summary, the literature surrounding the impact of air pollution on pediatric asthma presents a mosaic of research, ranging from serious studies to lighthearted fictional works and relatable internet memes. This eclectic mix underscores the multifaceted nature of the issue and serves as a reminder that when it comes to addressing the wheezy conundrum of air pollution and childhood asthma, a balanced approach is key – with a sprinkle of humor and a breath of fresh air, of course.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and National Center for Health Statistics . You used data from 1997 to 2019

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the winds of progress! They carry many things, including, unfortunately, pollutants that can wreak havoc on our respiratory systems. In recent years, the impact of air pollution on human health has become a hot topic, and rightly so. The wheezes, coughs, and struggles for breath that accompany asthma attacks are no laughing matter, especially for the millions of children affected each year. As we dive into this wheezy analysis, let's take a deep breath and explore the complex relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and its potential to trigger asthma attacks in American children.
It's no secret that air pollution can make it difficult for everyone, especially children, to breathe easy. The mix of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds in the air can lead to respiratory distress and exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. We can't help but think that if clean air was a currency, we'd all be whee-lthy—pun intended! However, the serious implications for children's health cannot be overstated.
The aim of this research is to shine a spotlight on a pressing public health issue and inject a breath of fresh air into the discourse surrounding air quality and pediatric asthma. We've all heard the old chestnut that knowledge is power, and the findings of this study aim to empower policymakers and stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and mitigate the impact of asthma on the youngest members of society. After all, when it comes to protecting our children from the harmful effects of air pollution, we can't afford to take things lightly—like a good dad joke, it's nothing to wheeze at!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Sniffing out the connection between air pollution in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children required a meticulous and thorough approach. Our data collection efforts took us on a lung-wrenching journey through the vast expanse of statistics, where we sifted through treasure troves of information from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics. We navigated through mountains of data from 1997 to 2019, keeping our noses to the grindstone to ensure our analysis captured the full breadth of the wheezing landscape.

To quantify the levels of air pollution in Oklahoma City, we harnessed the power of some cutting-edge techniques. We developed a high-tech contraption – a gizmo, if you will – that measures air quality by analyzing the molecular composition of air samples. This gadget, affectionately dubbed the "Air-pocalyptor 3000", sampled the atmosphere at various locations across Oklahoma City. Our team donned lab coats and ventured into the urban wilderness armed with our trusty Air-pocalyptor 3000, determined to paint a vivid picture of air pollution levels in the city. The only challenge we faced during these expeditions was fixing the occasional "airror" in data collection - but nothing a little fresh air couldn't clear up!

Simultaneously, our researchers delved into the medical records of American children, combing through a dizzying array of data to identify asthma attacks. This involved sifting through electronic health records, hospital admissions, and other clinical data sources to pinpoint instances of pediatric asthma exacerbations. We definitely felt like we were treading through a data dust storm at times, but we remained undaunted in our quest to uncover the wheezy truth.

With our data in hand, we waded into the statistical jungle armed with the trusty tools of the trade. Employing sophisticated statistical methods, including correlation analysis and regression modeling, we sought to untangle the complex relationship between air pollution levels and pediatric asthma attacks. Our analysis left no statistical stone unturned in our pursuit of uncovering the wheezy conundrum at the heart of our research.

Venturing into uncharted statistical territory requires a good sense of humor to keep things light, especially when faced with the serious implications of our findings. As we navigated the labyrinth of data, we couldn't help but appreciate the irony that, though we were probing the serious impact of air pollution on children, our journey seemed to be filled with more "air"-onic moments than we had bargained for.

In the end, we emerged from the statistical thicket with our data in hand, ready to breathe life into our analysis and unveil the compelling relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and the incidence of asthma attacks among American children. And just as a parting pun, we'd like to remind everyone that when it comes to understanding the impact of air pollution on children's health, a breath of fresh analysis can truly take our understanding to new heights!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and National Center for Health Statistics .

For the time period 1997 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.6904112, r-squared of 0.4766676, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the winds of progress! They carry many things, including, unfortunately, pollutants that can wreak havoc on our respiratory systems. In recent years, the impact of air pollution on human health has become a hot topic, and rightly so. The wheezes, coughs, and struggles for breath that accompany asthma attacks are no laughing matter, especially for the millions of children affected each year. As we dive into this wheezy analysis, let's take a deep breath and explore the complex relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and its potential to trigger asthma attacks in American children.
It's no secret that air pollution can make it difficult for everyone, especially children, to breathe easy. The mix of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds in the air can lead to respiratory distress and exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. We can't help but think that if clean air was a currency, we'd all be whee-lthy—pun intended! However, the serious implications for children's health cannot be overstated.
The aim of this research is to shine a spotlight on a pressing public health issue and inject a breath of fresh air into the discourse surrounding air quality and pediatric asthma. We've all heard the old chestnut that knowledge is power, and the findings of this study aim to empower policymakers and stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and mitigate the impact of asthma on the youngest members of society. After all, when it comes to protecting our children from the harmful effects of air pollution, we can't afford to take things lightly—like a good dad joke, it's nothing to wheeze at!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and the incidence of asthma attacks in American children. The correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 indicated a robust relationship between these variables. As we dug into the data, we couldn't help but marvel at the way air quality and asthma attacks seemed to be intertwined, almost like old friends who just can't seem to stay apart. It's as if they have a real *air-ffinity* for each other!

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.4766676 suggested that approximately 47.67% of the variability in pediatric asthma attacks can be explained by variations in air pollution levels. Imagine that, almost half of the asthma puzzle could be filled in just by looking at air pollution data! We couldn't help but chuckle at the thought that uncovering this relationship was a breath of fresh air for our research.

The significance level (p < 0.01) provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between air pollution and asthma attacks in children. With such a low p-value, we were more convinced than ever that this connection was no mere coincidence. We started to wonder if air pollution and asthma were in cahoots, like a mischievous duo playing tricks on the respiratory systems of youngsters.

Additionally, Figure 1 portrayed a striking scatterplot displaying the strong positive correlation between air pollution levels and asthma attacks in American children. The data points hugged the line of best fit as if they were in a tight embrace, illustrating the undeniable relationship between these variables. It's as if the scatterplot was a visual representation of the bond between air pollution and asthma, complete with a wheezy soundtrack.

In conclusion, our findings support a clear and significant association between air pollution in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. It's time to take a deep breath and recognize the importance of clean air, particularly for the health of our youngest generation. As we say in the academic world, when it comes to protecting our children from the wheezy woes of air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between air pollution and asthma prevalence has captured the attention of researchers for decades. Smith, in their seminal work "Air Quality and Pediatric Asthma: A Comprehensive Review," highlighted the multifaceted relationship between various air pollutants and the incidence of asthma attacks in children. Their findings underscore the detrimental impact of particulate matter and ozone on respiratory health, painting a vivid picture of the wheezy challenges faced by young asthma sufferers. However, as we delve deeper into the literature, it becomes apparent that there's more to this wheezy conundrum than meets the eye.
Doe and Jones, in their exhaustive meta-analysis "The Wheeze Factor: Unraveling the Link Between Air Pollution and Childhood Asthma," corroborate the substantial evidence pointing to a positive association between air pollution levels and pediatric asthma exacerbations. Their comprehensive study integrates data from various regions, shedding light on the global impact of poor air quality on children's respiratory well-being. The wheeze-inducing implications of their findings cannot be overstated.
Now, let's take a comedic detour and examine some non-fiction books related to the topic. "The Air We Breathe: A Pollution Primer" by John Smith offers a comprehensive overview of air quality issues and their impacts on health, providing readers with a breath of knowledge on the subject. In a similar vein, "The Asthma Survival Guide" by Jane Doe offers practical tips and insights for managing asthma and navigating environmental triggers, because sometimes a wheeze is just a wheeze.
As we shift gears into the realm of fiction, we encounter intriguing titles that seem oddly relevant. "The Invisible Air: A Tale of Pollution and Peril" by A.J. Green imagines a world where polluted air poses an invisible threat to children's health, weaving a cautionary tale that hits close to home. Meanwhile, "The Wheezing Wonders: Adventures in Asthma-Land" by E. Brown presents a whimsical portrayal of a fictional realm where characters grapple with airborne challenges in a lighthearted but astute manner.
In a nod to internet culture, it's worth mentioning the meme "Distracted Boyfriend" – a lighthearted yet relatable representation of the way air pollutants distract our respiratory systems from their usual healthy rhythms. And of course, who could forget the classic "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" meme? When it comes to air pollution exacerbating childhood asthma, ain't nobody got time for that – it's a serious matter that demands attention!
In summary, the literature surrounding the impact of air pollution on pediatric asthma presents a mosaic of research, ranging from serious studies to lighthearted fictional works and relatable internet memes. This eclectic mix underscores the multifaceted nature of the issue and serves as a reminder that when it comes to addressing the wheezy conundrum of air pollution and childhood asthma, a balanced approach is key – with a sprinkle of humor and a breath of fresh air, of course.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and the incidence of asthma attacks in American children. The correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 indicated a robust relationship between these variables. As we dug into the data, we couldn't help but marvel at the way air quality and asthma attacks seemed to be intertwined, almost like old friends who just can't seem to stay apart. It's as if they have a real *air-ffinity* for each other!
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.4766676 suggested that approximately 47.67% of the variability in pediatric asthma attacks can be explained by variations in air pollution levels. Imagine that, almost half of the asthma puzzle could be filled in just by looking at air pollution data! We couldn't help but chuckle at the thought that uncovering this relationship was a breath of fresh air for our research.
The significance level (p < 0.01) provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between air pollution and asthma attacks in children. With such a low p-value, we were more convinced than ever that this connection was no mere coincidence. We started to wonder if air pollution and asthma were in cahoots, like a mischievous duo playing tricks on the respiratory systems of youngsters.
Additionally, Figure 1 portrayed a striking scatterplot displaying the strong positive correlation between air pollution levels and asthma attacks in American children. The data points hugged the line of best fit as if they were in a tight embrace, illustrating the undeniable relationship between these variables. It's as if the scatterplot was a visual representation of the bond between air pollution and asthma, complete with a wheezy soundtrack.
In conclusion, our findings support a clear and significant association between air pollution in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. It's time to take a deep breath and recognize the importance of clean air, particularly for the health of our youngest generation. As we say in the academic world, when it comes to protecting our children from the wheezy woes of air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings echo the sentiments expressed in the literature, affirming the substantial link between air pollution and pediatric asthma exacerbations. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 aligns with the extensive body of research highlighting the adverse impact of poor air quality on children's respiratory health. It's as if air pollution and asthma are in a committed relationship – they just can't seem to stay *air-part*.

The r-squared value of 0.4766676 further underscores the significance of air pollution in explaining the variability of pediatric asthma attacks. With almost half of the puzzle accounted for, it's clear that air pollution plays a substantial role in exacerbating asthma symptoms in children. Talk about a *breathtaking* revelation!

The low p-value (< 0.01) solidifies the strength of the association, rejecting the notion that the observed relationship between air pollution and asthma attacks is purely coincidental. It's as if air pollution and asthma are pulling a prank on the respiratory systems of children – a classic case of *air-ritation* if you will.

Our scatterplot, akin to a visual representation of a bromance, reflects the intimate embrace between air pollution levels and pediatric asthma attacks. It's as if the scatterplot is belting out a serenade, echoing the undeniable bond between these variables. A true love story of *air*-stounding proportions!

In light of these results, the pressing need to address air quality to mitigate the burden of pediatric asthma cannot be overlooked. It's time to clear the air and ensure a breath of fresh, unpolluted air for our children. As we navigate the wheezy conundrum of air pollution and pediatric asthma, it's essential to remember that when it comes to protecting our children's respiratory health, it's nothing to wheeze at – though air-parently, it's a matter with plenty of *breath* for puns!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Oklahoma City and Asthma attacks in American children. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the winds of progress! They carry many things, including, unfortunately, pollutants that can wreak havoc on our respiratory systems. In recent years, the impact of air pollution on human health has become a hot topic, and rightly so. The wheezes, coughs, and struggles for breath that accompany asthma attacks are no laughing matter, especially for the millions of children affected each year. As we dive into this wheezy analysis, let's take a deep breath and explore the complex relationship between air pollution in Oklahoma City and its potential to trigger asthma attacks in American children.
It's no secret that air pollution can make it difficult for everyone, especially children, to breathe easy. The mix of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds in the air can lead to respiratory distress and exacerbate existing conditions like asthma. We can't help but think that if clean air was a currency, we'd all be whee-lthy—pun intended! However, the serious implications for children's health cannot be overstated.
The aim of this research is to shine a spotlight on a pressing public health issue and inject a breath of fresh air into the discourse surrounding air quality and pediatric asthma. We've all heard the old chestnut that knowledge is power, and the findings of this study aim to empower policymakers and stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and mitigate the impact of asthma on the youngest members of society. After all, when it comes to protecting our children from the harmful effects of air pollution, we can't afford to take things lightly—like a good dad joke, it's nothing to wheeze at!

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and the incidence of asthma attacks in American children. The correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 indicated a robust relationship between these variables. As we dug into the data, we couldn't help but marvel at the way air quality and asthma attacks seemed to be intertwined, almost like old friends who just can't seem to stay apart. It's as if they have a real *air-ffinity* for each other!
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.4766676 suggested that approximately 47.67% of the variability in pediatric asthma attacks can be explained by variations in air pollution levels. Imagine that, almost half of the asthma puzzle could be filled in just by looking at air pollution data! We couldn't help but chuckle at the thought that uncovering this relationship was a breath of fresh air for our research.
The significance level (p < 0.01) provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between air pollution and asthma attacks in children. With such a low p-value, we were more convinced than ever that this connection was no mere coincidence. We started to wonder if air pollution and asthma were in cahoots, like a mischievous duo playing tricks on the respiratory systems of youngsters.
Additionally, Figure 1 portrayed a striking scatterplot displaying the strong positive correlation between air pollution levels and asthma attacks in American children. The data points hugged the line of best fit as if they were in a tight embrace, illustrating the undeniable relationship between these variables. It's as if the scatterplot was a visual representation of the bond between air pollution and asthma, complete with a wheezy soundtrack.
In conclusion, our findings support a clear and significant association between air pollution in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. It's time to take a deep breath and recognize the importance of clean air, particularly for the health of our youngest generation. As we say in the academic world, when it comes to protecting our children from the wheezy woes of air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In summary, our study provides compelling evidence of the significant relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and the incidence of asthma attacks in American children. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 speaks volumes about the intimate connection between these two variables. It's as if they were engaged in a constant game of "cat and mouse," or should we say, "pollutants and lungs?"

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.4766676 highlights the substantial impact of air quality on pediatric asthma, emphasizing the need for interventions to clean up the air like a giant cosmic vacuum cleaner. Our findings suggest that approximately 47.67% of the variability in asthma attacks can be attributed to variations in air pollution levels. It's almost like solving a jigsaw puzzle where the missing piece is a breath of fresh air—pun intended, of course!

The significance level (p < 0.01) underscores the undeniable connection between air pollution and asthma attacks in children, making it clear that this relationship is no mere coincidence. It's as if they were in cahoots, like two troublemakers stirring up a storm in the respiratory system. Our research leaves little room for doubt about the urgent need to address air quality concerns for the well-being of our youngest generation.

Ultimately, our results echo a resounding call to action for policymakers and stakeholders to prioritize efforts aimed at reducing air pollution and protecting the respiratory health of children. As we close the chapter on this research, we assert that no more investigation is needed in this area. The evidence is as clear as the air on a crisp morning—improving air quality is nothing to wheeze at!

And now, let's take a deep breath and bid adieu to this wheezy adventure - it's been quite an *air-raising* journey!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Ecological Health and Environmental Well-being


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Clean Air and Respiratory Health


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Breath of Fresh Flare: A Wheezy Analysis of Air Pollution in Oklahoma City and its Impact on Asthma Attacks in American Children with an abstract of This research employs a breath of fresh analysis to investigate the relationship between air pollution levels in Oklahoma City and asthma attacks in American children. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Center for Health Statistics, our team delved into this wheezy conundrum. We discovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.6904112 and p < 0.01 for the years 1997 to 2019. Our findings wheeze-fully suggest a strong link between higher air pollution levels and increased asthma attacks among the young population. This research aims to provide a breath of fresh air for policymakers, highlighting the pressing need to address air quality in order to reduce asthma exacerbations in children. As we say in the research community, when it comes to protecting children from air pollution, it's nothing to wheeze at.

ChatGPT:

air pollution, Oklahoma City, asthma attacks, American children, environmental protection agency, National Center for Health Statistics, correlation coefficient, air quality, asthma exacerbations, children's health, pollution impact, public health, policymakers

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Air pollution in Oklahoma City
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Oklahoma City, OK
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Oklahoma City

Asthma attacks in American children
Detailed data title: Percent of children in the US 0-4 years old who have had an asthma attack in the past year
Source: National Center for Health Statistics
See what else correlates with Asthma attacks in American children

Correlation r = 0.6904112 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.4766676 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 47.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Asthma attacks in American children) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Oklahoma City) over the 23 years from 1997 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00027. 0.0002659953605572968000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.69 in 0.027% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 3,759 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.39, 0.86 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
Air pollution in Oklahoma City (Bad air quality days)6.8493216.43849.04119.8360710.68499.863018.493153.551919.041113.97262.739732.732244.383563.013712.054810.65572.191781.369860.5479450.8196721.917813.287670.547945
Asthma attacks in American children (Percent of children)4.14.74.24.44.74.94.23.94.44.54.14.14.54.64.43.52.82.63.22.52.92.91.4




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([6.84932,16.4384,9.0411,9.83607,10.6849,9.86301,8.49315,3.55191,9.0411,13.9726,2.73973,2.73224,4.38356,3.0137,12.0548,10.6557,2.19178,1.36986,0.547945,0.819672,1.91781,3.28767,0.547945,])
array_2 = np.array([4.1,4.7,4.2,4.4,4.7,4.9,4.2,3.9,4.4,4.5,4.1,4.1,4.5,4.6,4.4,3.5,2.8,2.6,3.2,2.5,2.9,2.9,1.4,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Oklahoma City"
array_2_name = "Asthma attacks in American children"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 1975 · Black Variable ID: 21001 · Red Variable ID: 1142
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0