IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v11y1991i1p38-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative Probability versus Quantitative Probability in Clinical Diagnosis

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Chard

Abstract

The use of Bayes' theorem as a diagnostic tool in clinical medicine normally requires an input of exact probability estimates. However, humans tend to think in categories ("likely," "unlikely," etc.) rather than in terms of exact probability. A computer simulation of the pre senting features of a case of pelvic infection has been used to compare the effects of quantitative and qualitative probability estimates on the diagnostic accuracy of Bayes' theo rem. For the commoner conditions (prior probability ≥ 0.2) the use of a two- or three-category system is virtually equivalent to the use of exact probability. However, uncommon conditions (prior probability ≤ 0.03) are completely ignored by the qualitative system. It is concluded that the use of simple categories of probability is acceptable for a Bayesian diagnostic system provided that the target conditions have a relatively high prior probability. Key words: Bayes' theorem; quantitative probability; qualitative probability; computer simulation. (Med Decis Making 1991;11:38-41)

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Chard, 1991. "Qualitative Probability versus Quantitative Probability in Clinical Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(1), pages 38-41, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:11:y:1991:i:1:p:38-41
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9101100106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9101100106?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
    ---><---

    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:11:y:1991:i:1:p:38-41. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.