Physicians' use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting.

Christensen-Szalanski, Jay; Bushyhead, James B.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.4.928

Cited by 280 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…8 We obtained each of these papers to reconfirm that the scoring rule used by Winkler and Poses was the same as that used in our paper. Besides these studies, Winkler and Poses also analyzed data from a study by Christensen -Szalanski, and Bushyhead ( 1981 ). We could not confirm the scores from this study, and because they seemed suspect, we have not reported them here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: Part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposures to benzene

Walker

Catalano

Hammitt

et al. 2003

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent movement of regulatory agencies toward probabilistic analyses of human health and environmental risks has focused greater attention on the quality of the estimates of variability and uncertainty that underlie them. Of particular concern is how uncertainty -a measure of what is not known -is characterized, as uncertainty can play an influential role in analyses of the need for regulatory controls or in estimates of the economic value of additional research. This paper reports the second phase of a study, conducted as an element of the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey ( NHEXAS ), to obtain and calibrate exposure assessment experts' judgments about uncertainty in residential ambient, residential indoor, and personal air benzene concentrations experienced by the nonsmoking, nonoccupationally exposed population in U.S. EPA's Region V. Subjective judgments ( i.e., the median, interquartile range, and 90% confidence interval ) about the means and 90th percentiles of each of the benzene distributions were elicited from the seven experts participating in the study. The calibration or quality of the experts' judgments was assessed by comparing them to the actual measurements from the NHEXAS Region V study using graphical techniques, a quadratic scoring rule, and surprise and interquartile indices. The results from both quantitative scoring methods suggested that, considered collectively, the experts' judgments were relatively well calibrated although on balance, underconfident. The calibration of individual expert judgments appeared variable, highlighting potential pitfalls in reliance on individual experts. In a surprising finding, the experts' judgments about the 90th percentiles of the benzene distributions were better calibrated than their predictions about the means; the experts tended to be overconfident in their ability to predict the means. This paper is also one of the first calibration studies to demonstrate the importance of taking into account intraexpert correlation on the statistical significance of the findings. When the judgments were assumed to be independent, analysis of the surprise and interquartile indices found evidence of poor calibration ( P < 0.05 ). However, when the intraexpert correlation in the study was taken into account, these findings were no longer statistically significant. The analysis further found that the experts' judgments scored better than estimates of Region V benzene concentrations simply drawn from earlier studies of ambient, indoor and personal benzene levels in other U.S. cities. These results suggest the value of careful elicitation of expert judgments in characterizing exposures in probabilistic form. Additional calibration studies need to be undertaken to corroborate and extend these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: Part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposures to benzene

Walker

Catalano

Hammitt

et al. 2003

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals often demonstrate inaccurate assessments of their environments, including their own abilities, payoffs, and probabilistic assessments. For example, people are frequently overconfident, with voluminous evidence suggesting that the ranks of the overconfident include judges (Guthrie, Rachlinski and Wistrich, 2001), psychologists (Oskamp, 1965), physicians (Christensen-Szalanski and Bushyhead, 1981), engineers (Kidd, 1970), entrepreneurs (Camerer and Lovallo, 1999;Cooper et al, 1988), negotiators (Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997), securities analysts (Froot and Frankel, 1989;De Bondt and Thaler, 1985), and managers (Russo and Schoemaker, 1992). In many experiments, subjects sacrifice personal payoffs to reward or punish others, or for purely altruistic reasons.Evidence also suggests that the nature of these departures may vary with the context or nature of interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dynamic Evolution of Preferences

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a general methodology for characterizing the dynamic evolution of preferences in a wide class of strategic interactions. We give simple conditions characterizing the limiting distribution of preferences in general games, and apply our results to study the evolutionary emergence of overconfidence and interdependent preferences. We also show that this methodology can be adapted to cases where preferences are only imperfectly observed.

show abstract

“…Es por ello que, como lo demuestran otros trabajos, resulta posible que el número de radiografías por paciente que consulta sea elevado, ya que en los Servicios de Urgencia se suelen sobreestimar la probabilidad de neumonía de los enfermos que consultan por síntomas respiratorios, situación que deberá revalorarse en futuros estudios. 21,22 El presente estudio también permitió observar que los costos de hospitalización del PIH1N1 fueron 2,6 veces mayores en relación al costo promedio anual del PIE06-08, principalmente asociados al número de hospitalizaciones.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified