IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i3p262-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Gary Klein, 1999. "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611465, April.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Franses, Philip Hans, 2008. "Merging models and experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 31-33.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Mike Metcalfe, 2013. "A Pragmatic System of Decision Criteria," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 56-64, January.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Philip Hans Franses & Michael McAleer & Rianne Legerstee, 2009. "Expert opinion versus expertise in forecasting," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 63(3), pages 334-346, August.
    12. Franses, Philip Hans & Legerstee, Rianne, 2013. "Do statistical forecasting models for SKU-level data benefit from including past expert knowledge?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 80-87.
    13. Jonathan Lee & Peter Boatwright & Wagner A. Kamakura, 2003. "A Bayesian Model for Prelaunch Sales Forecasting of Recorded Music," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 179-196, February.
    14. Betsch, Tilmann & Haberstroh, Susanne & Molter, Beate & Glockner, Andreas, 2004. "Oops, I did it again--relapse errors in routinized decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 62-74, January.
    15. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "How to Improve the Accuracy of Project Schedules? The Effect of Project Specification and Historical Information on Duration Estimates," MPRA Paper 95585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2018. "Forecasting from time series subject to sporadic perturbations: Effectiveness of different types of forecasting support," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 163-180.
    17. Hensher, D. A. & Louviere, J. J. & Hansen, D. E., 2000. "The use of mixtures of market and experimental choice data in establishing guideline weights for evaluating competitive bids in a transport organisation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 279-286, October.
    18. Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Legerstee, R., 2007. "What drives the relevance and quality of experts' adjustment to model-based forecasts?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-43, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    19. Shepherd, Dean A. & Zacharakis, Andrew, 2002. "Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Jordan Vazquez & Cécile Godé & Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, 2017. "Les enjeux des environnements big data pour la Police Nationale," Post-Print halshs-02188803, HAL.

    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.