IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i3p262-282.html

Assessing the Likelihood of an Important Clinical Outcome: New Insights from a Comparison of Clinical and Actuarial Judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Rakow

    (University of Essex, Colchester, UK, timrakow@essex.ac.uk)

  • Charles Vincent

    (Imperial College, London, UK)

  • Kate Bull

    (The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, UK)

  • Nigel Harvey

    (University College London, UK)

Abstract

Purpose . To assess and rank the performance of different methods of predicting the probability of death following a specified surgical procedure. Method . Actuarial estimates of the probability of early mortality for 40 patients were derived from 2 sources: a large published surgical series and a smaller series from the center where surgery was performed. Surgeons and cardiologists also provided probability estimates for these patients. Results . Estimates derived from the published literature were too optimistic and did not differentiate between patients more, or less, likely to die (i.e., failed to discriminate). Doctors’ judgments were unbiased but failed to discriminate. Local actuarial estimates (influenced by only 1 or 2 variables) were unbiased, did discriminate, but exhibited more random variation. Conclusions . The preferred source of estimates depends upon which aspect of accuracy is of greatest importance. Differences in patient selection and error in the identification of risk factors mean that published results will not always appropriately predict surgical risk at other institutions. Risk stratification may be more robust when based on a small set of cross-validated predictors rather than a larger set of predictors that includes some whose reliability has not been confirmed.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Rakow & Charles Vincent & Kate Bull & Nigel Harvey, 2005. "Assessing the Likelihood of an Important Clinical Outcome: New Insights from a Comparison of Clinical and Actuarial Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 262-282, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:262-282
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05276849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert C. Blattberg & Stephen J. Hoch, 1990. "Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 887-899, August.
    2. Gary Klein, 1999. "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611465, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ninko Kostovski & Marjan Bojadjiev & Hari Lokvenec, 2017. "Decision Support Systems For New Project Development In Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industries," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 4-14, October.
    2. Baecke, Philippe & De Baets, Shari & Vanderheyden, Karlien, 2017. "Investigating the added value of integrating human judgement into statistical demand forecasting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 85-96.
    3. Madhukar Nagare & Pankaj Dutta & Naoufel Cheikhrouhou, 2016. "Optimal ordering policy for newsvendor models with bidirectional changes in demand using expert judgment," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 53(3), pages 620-647, September.
    4. Steve Clarke, 2010. "Cognitive bias and the precautionary principle: what's wrong with the core argument in Sunstein's Laws of Fear and a way to fix it," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 163-174, March.
    5. Jessica L. Darby & David J. Ketchen & Brent D. Williams & Travis Tokar, 2020. "The Implications of Firm‐Specific Policy Risk, Policy Uncertainty, and Industry Factors for Inventory: A Resource Dependence Perspective," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 56(4), pages 3-24, October.
    6. Gerrit H. van Bruggen & Ale Smidts & Berend Wierenga, 1998. "Improving Decision Making by Means of a Marketing Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 645-658, May.
    7. van der Staak, B.B.J.P.J. & Basten, R.J.I. & van de Calseyde, P.P.F.M. & Demerouti, E. & de Kok, A.G., 2025. "Light-touch forecasting: A novel method to combine human judgment with statistical algorithms," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 440-451.
    8. Jordan Vazquez & Cécile Godé & Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, 2018. "Environnement big data et décision : l'étape de contre la montre du tour de France 2017," Post-Print halshs-02188793, HAL.
    9. David Williams, 2014. "Models, Metaphors and Symbols for Information and Knowledge Systems," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 10(1), pages 79-107.
    10. Haupt Brittany, 2021. "The Use of Crisis Communication Strategies in Emergency Management," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 18(2), pages 125-150.
    11. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
    12. Franses, Philip Hans, 2008. "Merging models and experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 31-33.
    13. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Green, R. H. & McAulay, L. & Pitt, M. R. & Bottomley, P. A. & Evans, W., 1996. "The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 13-28, February.
    14. Kim, Jong Hyun & Seong, Poong Hyun, 2007. "The effect of information types on diagnostic strategies in the information aid," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 171-186.
    15. Yan, Ruiliang & Ghose, Sanjoy, 2010. "Forecast information and traditional retailer performance in a dual-channel competitive market," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 77-83, January.
    16. Önkal, Dilek & Lawrence, Michael & Zeynep SayIm, K., 2011. "Influence of differentiated roles on group forecasting accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 50-68, January.
    17. Mike Metcalfe, 2013. "A Pragmatic System of Decision Criteria," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 56-64, January.
    18. Albers, Sönke, 2012. "Optimizable and implementable aggregate response modeling for marketing decision support," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 111-122.
    19. Mirko Kremer & Enno Siemsen & Douglas J. Thomas, 2016. "The Sum and Its Parts: Judgmental Hierarchical Forecasting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2745-2764, September.
    20. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:262-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.