Literature DB >> 3054395

Evaluating physicians' probabilistic judgments.

R M Poses1, R D Cebul, R M Centor.   

Abstract

Physicians increasingly are challenged to make probabilistic judgments quantitatively. Their ability to make such judgments may be directly linked to the quality of care they provide. Many methods are available to evaluate these judgments. Graphic means of assessment include the calibration curve, covariance graph, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Statistical tools can measure the significance of departures from ideal calibration, and measure the area under ROC curve. Modeling the calibration curve using linear or logistic regression provides another method to assess probabilistic judgments, although these may be limited by failure of the data to meet the model's assumptions. Scoring rules provide indices of overall judgmental performance, although their reliability is difficult to gauge for small sample sizes. Decompositions of scoring rules separate judgmental performance into functional components. The authors provide preliminary guidelines for choosing methods for specific research in this area.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3054395     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  9 in total

1.  Bayesian communication: a clinically significant paradigm for electronic publication.

Authors:  H P Lehmann; S N Goodman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?

Authors:  F Kee; T Owen; R Leathem
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  J S Mandelblatt; D G Fryback; M C Weinstein; L B Russell; M R Gold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Mammographers' perception of women's breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Joseph R Egger; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; R Edward Hendrick; Carl J D'Orsi; Jessica S Fosse; Linn Abraham; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Breast cancer risk estimation with artificial neural networks revisited: discrimination and calibration.

Authors:  Turgay Ayer; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Jude W Shavlik; Charles E Kahn; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Diagnostic judgments of nurse practitioners providing primary gynecologic care: a quantitative analysis.

Authors:  G E Rosenthal; G Mettler; S Pare; M Riegger; M Ward; C S Landefeld
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Differences between attendings' and fellows' perceptions of futile treatment in the intensive care unit at one academic health center: implications for training.

Authors:  Thanh H Neville; Joshua F Wiley; Eric S Holmboe; Chi-Hong Tseng; Paul Vespa; Eric C Kleerup; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings.

Authors:  P Schuetz; M Koller; M Christ-Crain; E Steyerberg; D Stolz; C Müller; H C Bucher; R Bingisser; M Tamm; B Müller
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 2.451

9.  Confidence Can Be Measured and Calibrated.

Authors:  Behrang Amini; Michael L Richardson
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-02-13
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.