Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 146
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ebert, Philip A. 2019. Bayesian reasoning in avalanche terrain: a theoretical investigation. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 84.

    Wegwarth, Odette and Gigerenzer, Gerd 2018. Psycho-Oncology. Vol. 210, Issue. , p. 207.

    Werner, Christoph Hanea, Anca M. and Morales-Nápoles, Oswaldo 2018. Elicitation. Vol. 261, Issue. , p. 171.

    Starns, Jeffrey J. Cohen, Andrew L. Bosco, Cara and Hirst, Jennifer 2018. A visualization technique for Bayesian reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

    Wegwarth, Odette and Gigerenzer, Gerd 2018. US gynecologists’ estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening’s effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence. Scientific Reports, Vol. 8, Issue. 1,

    Wright, M. Keith 2018. Intelligent Systems. p. 89.

    Garrett, Bernie 2018. Empirical Nursing. p. 187.

    Hoffrage, Ulrich and Garcia-Retamero, Rocio 2018. Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. p. 279.

    Løhre, Erik 2018. Stronger, sooner, and more certain climate change: A link between certainty and outcome strength in revised forecasts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 71, Issue. 12, p. 2531.

    Lindhiem, Oliver Petersen, Isaac T. Mentch, Lucas K. and Youngstrom, Eric A. 2018. The Importance of Calibration in Clinical Psychology. Assessment, p. 107319111775205.

    Langanke, Martin and Kirschke, Stefan 2018. Evidenzbasierte Praxis in den Gesundheitsberufen. p. 183.

    Ehlers, Ute Christine Ryeng, Eirin Olaussen McCormack, Edward Khan, Faisal and Ehlers, Sören 2018. Bowtie Analysis without Expert Acquisition for Safety Effect Assessments of Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, Vol. 4, Issue. 4, p. 04018036.

    Cao, Jack Kleiman-Weiner, Max and Banaji, Mahzarin R. 2018. People Make the Same Bayesian Judgment They Criticize in Others. Psychological Science, p. 095679761880575.

    Wegwarth, O. 2018. Brustkrebsfrüherkennung – Nutzen und Risiken richtig kommunizieren. Der Gynäkologe, Vol. 51, Issue. 5, p. 370.

    Wild, Christopher J. Utts, Jessica M. and Horton, Nicholas J. 2018. International Handbook of Research in Statistics Education. p. 5.

    Böcherer-Linder, Katharina Eichler, Andreas and Vogel, Markus 2018. Die Formel von Bayes: Kognitionspsychologische Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung von Teilmenge-Grundmenge-Beziehungen. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik,

    León, José A. and Escudero, Inmaculada 2017. Reading Comprehension in Educational Settings. Vol. 16, Issue. , p. 63.

    Trueblood, Jennifer S. and Mistry, Percy K. 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science. p. 251.

    Cao, Jack Kleiman-Weiner, Max and Banaji, Mahzarin R. 2017. Statistically inaccurate and morally unfair judgements via base rate intrusion. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 1, Issue. 10, p. 738.

    Cohen, Andrew L. Sidlowski, Sara and Staub, Adrian 2017. Beliefs and Bayesian reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 972.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1982
  • Online publication date: May 2013

18 - Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities

Summary

To a great extent, the quality and cost of health care are determined by the decisions made by physicians whose ultimate objective is to design and administer a treatment program to improve a patient's condition. Most of the decisions involve many factors, great uncertainty, and difficult value questions.

This chapter examines one aspect of how these decisions are made, studying the use of probabilistic reasoning to analyze a particular problem: whether to perform a biopsy on a woman who has a breast mass that might be malignant. Specifically, we shall study how physicians process information about the results of a mammogram, an X-ray test used to diagnose breast cancer. The evidence presented shows that physicians do not manage uncertainty very well, that many physicians make major errors in probabilistic reasoning, and that these errors threaten the quality of medical care.

The problem

A breast biopsy is not a trivial procedure. The most common type (around 80%) is the excisional biopsy, in which the suspicious mass is removed surgically for microscopic examination and histological diagnosis by a pathologist. Usually the patient is admitted to a hospital and given a full set of preoperative diagnostic tests. The biopsy is almost always done under general anesthesia (with a probability of approximately 2 out of 10,000 of an anesthetic death).

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Judgment under Uncertainty
  • Online ISBN: 9780511809477
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×