Higher Cloud Cover Predicts Very Slightly Lower Hostility for Population

Higher Cloud Cover Predicts Very Slightly Lower Hostility for Population

Contents

Variables

A
Cloud Cover 403
A
Hostility 1794

Categories

A
Environment 564
A
Emotions 2028

Actions

A
Join Study
A
Your Data

Tags

High Confidence
Very Weak Effect Size
Negative Relationship
Population Study
cause image gauge image effect image
Participants reported a 5.2% average decrease in Hostility following above average Cloud Cover.

Abstract

Hostility was generally 1.59524% lower than average after 45.5 percent of Cloud Cover per 7 days.

Aggregated data from 21 study participants suggests with a HIGH degree of confidence (p=0.201, 95% CI -0.366 to 0.293) that Cloud Cover has a very weakly negative predictive relationship (R=-0.0362) with Hostility.

The highest quartile of Hostility measurements were observed following an average 46.1 percent Cloud Cover.

The lowest quartile of Hostility measurements were observed following an average 46.7 percent of Cloud Cover.

After an onset delay of 0 seconds, Hostility is typically 3% lower than average over the 7 days following around 46.7 percent of Cloud Cover Cloud Cover.

Keywords: Cloud Cover, Hostility, N-of-1 trials, real-world evidence, causal inference, observational study

Moderate Confidence: Based on 21 participants. More data would increase certainty.

Results

Primary Findings

Analysis of 1,946 paired observations from 21 participants revealed a minimal reduction in Hostility following above-average Cloud Cover exposure.

-1.6%
Change from Baseline
Minimal effect on Hostility
0.03
Predictor Impact Score
Insufficient evidence for causal relationship

Supporting Statistics

High
Confidence
-0.036
Correlation (r)
p = 0.395
Significance
z = 0.42
Effect Magnitude
φ = 1.00
Temporality

What This Means

When participants had above-average Cloud Cover:

  • Hostility decreased by 1.6% on average
  • Temporal analysis supports Cloud Cover as the predictor (not the outcome)

Interpreting the Predictor Impact Score

The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) integrates multiple Bradford Hill causal criteria into a single metric. Use this guide to interpret the score:

PIS Range Interpretation Recommended Action
≥ 0.5 Strong evidence High priority for RCT validation
0.3 - 0.5 Moderate evidence Consider for experimental investigation
0.1 - 0.3 Weak evidence Monitor for additional data
< 0.1 Insufficient evidence Low priority; may be noise

Note: PIS is a prioritization heuristic, not proof of causation. High scores indicate relationships worth investigating, not confirmed causal effects. With only 21 participants, these scores are preliminary and will become more reliable as additional data is collected.

Optimal Daily Values

No clear dose-response relationship detected. The Cloud Cover values associated with high and low Hostility are too similar to provide meaningful dosing guidance. This may indicate a threshold effect (any amount works equally well), no effect, or insufficient data variance. With more participants, a clearer pattern may emerge.

Population Correlation

Cloud Cover Distribution

Hostility Distribution

Relationship Analysis

Statistical Summary

Relationship Statistics

Property Value
Cause Variable Name Cloud Cover
Effect Variable Name Hostility
Sinn Predictive Coefficient 0.031767078908257
Confidence Level HIGH
Confidence Interval 0.32961824738025
Forward Pearson Predictive Coefficient -0.0362
Critical T Value 1.7111428571429
Average Cloud Cover Over Previous 7 days Before ABOVE Average Hostility 46.1 percent
Average Cloud Cover Over Previous 7 days Before BELOW Average Hostility 46.7 percent
Duration of Action 7 days
Effect Size very weakly negative
Number of Paired Measurements 1946
Optimal Pearson Product 0.20206369826545
P Value 0.20116458121943
Statistical Significance 0.3954
Strength of Relationship 0.32961824738025
Study Type population
Analysis Performed At 2026-01-04
Number of Participants 21

Cloud Cover Info

Property Value
Variable Name Cloud Cover
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2021-03-17
Duration of Action 7 days
Kurtosis 2.0771248962113
Mean 45.750016150235 percent
Median 45.956807511737 percent
Number of Aggregate Predictors 0
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 403
Number of Measurements 1790
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 1790
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 21.620126277725
Unit Percent
User Variables 1066
UPC 736902427712
Variable Category Environment
Variable ID 5957090
Variance 716.23145668104

Hostility Info

Property Value
Variable Name Hostility
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2020-09-11
Duration of Action 24 hours
Kurtosis 3.2955086179779
Maximum Allowed Value 5 out of 5
Mean 2.0950173666087 out of 5
Median 2.0214201534985 out of 5
Minimum Allowed Value 1 out of 5
Number of Aggregate Predictors 1646
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 148
Number of Measurements 24265
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 23622
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 0.4788482547512
Unit 1 to 5 Rating
User Variables 1458
UPC 780456428275
Variable Category Emotions
Variable ID 1344
Variance 0.57308207019228

Introduction

Background

Cloud Cover (Environment) and Hostility (Emotions) are both important factors in understanding human health and well-being. This study investigates the relationship between these two variables using real-world observational data.

Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for causal inference, are often impractical, expensive, or unethical for studying many health relationships. Aggregated N-of-1 observational studies offer a complementary approach that leverages within-subject comparisons across large populations to identify meaningful patterns.

Research Question

Does Cloud Cover affect Hostility?

Additionally, we seek to determine:

  1. What is the direction and magnitude of any effect?
  2. How confident can we be in this relationship based on the available data?
  3. What are the optimal levels of Cloud Cover for maximizing Hostility?

Study Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between Cloud Cover and Hostility. Additionally, we attempt to determine the Cloud Cover values most likely to produce optimal Hostility values.

Study Overview

This is a population-level observational study using aggregated N-of-1 methodology. By aggregating individual N-of-1 experiments, we can identify population-level patterns while accounting for the substantial individual variation that exists in most health relationships. Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline, enabling intuitive interpretation and comparison across different measures.

Full Methodology: Framework for Real-World Evidence-Based Pharmacovigilance: Aggregated N-of-1 Trials for Quantifying Treatment Effects

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings

Participants experienced a 1.6% reduction in Hostility following above-average Cloud Cover exposure. The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) of 0.03 indicates insufficient evidence for a causal relationship.

Statistical Significance

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Hostility is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the Cloud Cover value may not have a significant influence on the Hostility value, or that more data is needed to detect an effect.

After treatment, a 5.2% decrease (-0.0557 out of 5) from the mean baseline 2.47 out of 5 was observed. The relative standard deviation at baseline was 24.2714%. The observed change was 0.421616 times the standard deviation.

A common rule of thumb considers a change greater than twice the baseline standard deviation on two separate pre-post experiments may be considered significant. This occurrence would have only a 5% likelihood of resulting from random fluctuation (a p-value < 0.05).

T-Test Details
Observed t-value: 1.451
Critical t-value: 1.711

Since t = 1.45 < 1.71, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Biological Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between predictor and outcome is critical for interpreting observational findings. This is where human judgment excels beyond statistical analysis.

Community feedback on the biological plausibility of this relationship is still being collected. Consider the known mechanisms by which Cloud Cover might influence Hostility.

Bradford Hill Criteria Assessment

The Bradford Hill criteria provide a framework for assessing causality in observational studies. Our methodology operationalizes six of the nine criteria through the Predictor Impact Score (PIS):

Criterion How Addressed Metric
Strength Effect size magnitude Percent change from baseline (Δ%), z-score
Consistency Cross-participant replication Number of users (N), number of pairs (n)
Temporality Predictor precedes outcome Temporality factor (φ), onset delay (δ > 0)
Biological Gradient Dose-response relationship Gradient coefficient (φgradient)
Plausibility Biological mechanism assessment Community votes on mechanism plausibility
Specificity Category appropriateness Interest factor (finterest)

Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

The PIS integrates multiple Bradford Hill criteria into a composite metric quantifying how reliably a predictor affects an outcome. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence:

Population-Level PIS:

$$\text{PIS}_{\text{agg}} = |r_{\text{forward}}| \cdot w \cdot \phi_{\text{users}} \cdot \phi_{\text{pairs}} \cdot \phi_{\text{change}} \cdot \phi_{\text{gradient}}$$

Where φ-factors are saturation functions approaching 1 as evidence accumulates:

  • φusers = 1 - e-N/10 (user saturation)
  • φpairs = 1 - e-n/nsig (pair saturation)
  • φchange = 1 - e-Δspread/Δsig (effect spread saturation)
  • w = weighted average of plausibility votes

Temporality Assessment

We assess evidence for correct causal direction using the temporality factor:

$$\phi_{\text{temporal}} = \frac{|r_{\text{forward}}|}{|r_{\text{forward}}| + |r_{\text{reverse}}|}$$

Values approaching 1 indicate the predictor precedes the outcome (supporting causation); values near 0.5 suggest ambiguous directionality; values near 0 suggest reverse causation or confounding by indication.

Limitations

As with any observational study, correlation does not prove causation. Key limitations include:

  • Unmeasured confounders: Variables not tracked may influence results
  • Self-selection bias: Health trackers may differ from the general population
  • Measurement error: Self-reported data may contain recall bias
  • Confounding by indication: Sicker individuals may use more treatments

However, within-subject comparison and temporal precedence analysis partially mitigate these limitations. If the relationship is merely coincidental, as participants independently modify their Cloud Cover values, the observed strength will decline over time. Spurious correlations naturally dissipate as more data is collected.

Future Directions

Future research should examine:

  • Subgroup analyses to identify individual differences in response
  • Potential confounders and mediators of the observed relationship
  • Optimal dosing and timing for Cloud Cover
  • Confirmation through prospective or randomized designs
  • Biological mechanisms underlying the observed effects

Conclusion

📊 Preliminary Findings: With 21 participants, these results are based on limited data. Effect sizes and confidence will improve as more participants contribute data. Consider these findings directional rather than definitive.

Above-average Cloud Cover was associated with a 1.6% reduction in Hostility—a minimal effect. The Predictor Impact Score of 0.03 indicates this relationship is requiring additional data before conclusions.

Bottom Line: Based on a PIS of 0.03 and a 1.6% effect size, this relationship currently lacks sufficient evidence. Continue monitoring as more data becomes available. Note: These conclusions may strengthen or change direction as more data is collected.

These findings contribute to our understanding of how Cloud Cover may influence Hostility in real-world conditions. While preliminary, these results may inform future research directions. As more participants contribute data, the reliability and precision of these findings will improve substantially.

Help End Unnecessary Suffering

Current clinical trials are 82x more expensive than necessary and take 17 years to bring treatments to market. Pragmatic trials integrated into standard healthcare could reduce costs from $41,000 to $500 per participant and compress timelines to just 2 years. Learn how redirecting just 1% of global military spending could accelerate cures for the 2 billion people suffering from treatable diseases.

Make Suffering Optional

Methods

Study Design

This study is based on data donated by 21 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 21 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

This within-subject design is powerful because it controls for all stable individual characteristics (genetics, baseline health status, socioeconomic factors) that might otherwise confound the relationship between variables.

Data Analysis

Temporal Assumptions

The analysis incorporates temporal assumptions about the relationship between variables:

  • Onset Delay: It was assumed that 0 seconds would pass before a change in Cloud Cover would produce an observable change in Hostility.
  • Duration of Action: It was assumed that Cloud Cover could produce an observable change in Hostility for as much as 7 days after the stimulus event.

Statistical Methods

For each participant, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between Cloud Cover values and subsequent Hostility values. Individual correlations were then aggregated using Fisher's z-transformation to produce a population-level estimate:

Individual Correlation:

$$r_i = \frac{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)}{\sqrt{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)^2 \sum(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)^2}}$$

Fisher's Z-Transformation:

$$z_i = \frac{1}{2} \ln\left(\frac{1 + r_i}{1 - r_i}\right)$$

Aggregated Correlation:

$$\bar{r} = \tanh(\bar{z}) \quad \text{where} \quad \bar{z} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_i$$

Effect Size Calculation

Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline. For each participant, we compare the outcome following above-average predictor values to the overall baseline outcome:

$$\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}} = \frac{\bar{O}_{\text{follow-up}} - \bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}}{\bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}} \times 100$$

Effect Magnitude (Z-Score)

To assess effect magnitude relative to natural variability, we calculate the z-score:

$$z = \frac{|\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}}|}{\text{RSD}_{\text{baseline}}}$$

where RSDbaseline is the relative standard deviation of outcome during baseline period

A z-score > 2 indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05), meaning the observed change exceeds typical baseline fluctuation and is unlikely due to random variation.

Statistical Significance

Correlation significance is assessed using a two-tailed t-test:

$$t = \frac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}$$

We reject the null hypothesis (ρ = 0) at α = 0.05 when |t| exceeds the critical value, providing statistical evidence that the observed relationship is not due to chance.

Data Sources

Cloud Cover data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Hostility data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Data Quality

Data quality measures were applied to ensure reliable results:

  • Minimum Data Requirement: Only participants with sufficient paired observations were included in the analysis.
  • Outlier Handling: Extreme values were winsorized to reduce the influence of measurement errors.
  • Missing Data: Days with missing values were handled using appropriate filling strategies based on the variable type.
  • Test User Exclusion: Test accounts and invalid users were excluded from all analyses.

Principal Investigator

Program & Methods

Mike P. Sinn
Sinn, M. P.

Designed and implemented data collection, aggregation, causal inference pipeline, and automated study generation framework. Developed the Predictor Impact Score methodology operationalizing Bradford Hill criteria for ranking causal relationships in observational data. When he tells people this at parties, they usually say they have to go check on their car.

Individual study outputs are automated, reproducible, and open to external audit. (Which I would seriously recommend.)

Contact

Cite This Study

APA Format
Sinn, M. P. (2026). Causal Analysis: Does Cloud Cover Affect Hostility?. The Journal of Citizen Science. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5957090-effect-1344-population-study
BibTeX 
@misc{sinn_cause_5957090_effect_1344_population_study_2026,
  author = {Sinn, Mike P.},
  title = {Causal Analysis: Does Cloud Cover Affect Hostility?},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {The Journal of Citizen Science},
  url = {https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5957090-effect-1344-population-study},
  note = {Accessed: January 9, 2026}
}
Chicago/Turabian
Sinn, Mike P. "Causal Analysis: Does Cloud Cover Affect Hostility?." The Journal of Citizen Science. Accessed January 9, 2026. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5957090-effect-1344-population-study.
Harvard
Sinn, M.P., 2026. Causal Analysis: Does Cloud Cover Affect Hostility?. [Aggregated N-of-1 Study] The Journal of Citizen Science. Available at: https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5957090-effect-1344-population-study [Accessed January 9, 2026].

Study Type: Aggregated N-of-1 Observational Mega-Study
Evidence Level: Level II (Real-World Evidence)
Methodology: Bradford Hill Criteria with Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

References

This framework was originally developed in 2013 based on the Bradford Hill criteria. Subsequent literature has independently validated similar approaches to causal inference from observational data:

  1. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295-300. [Bradford Hill criteria]
  2. Lillie, E.O., et al. (2011). The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized Medicine, 8(2), 161-173. [N-of-1 methodology]
  3. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . Cambridge University Press. [Causal inference]
  4. Hernán, M.A., & Robins, J.M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC. [Free textbook]
  5. FDA (2018). Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program . U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Regulatory context]
  6. Duan, N., et al. (2013). Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), S21-S28.
  7. Platt, R., et al. (2018). The FDA Sentinel Initiative—an evolving national resource . New England Journal of Medicine, 379(22), 2091-2093.

This information is for research and educational purposes only, not medical advice. Consult a healthcare provider before making health decisions. Terms of Service

LinkedIn Reddit