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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Makridakis, Spyros & Hyndman, Rob J. & Petropoulos, Fotios, 2020. "Forecasting in social settings: The state of the art," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 15-28.
    10. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    11. Goodwin, P., 1996. "Statistical correction of judgmental point forecasts and decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 551-559, October.
    12. Jordan Vazquez & Cécile Godé & Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, 2019. "Environnement big data et prise de décision intuitive : le cas de la Police Nationale des Bouches du Rhône," Post-Print halshs-02188451, HAL.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Christina L. Brown, 1999. "“Do the Right Thing:” Diverging Effects of Accountability in a Managerial Context," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 230-246.
    15. Jordan Vazquez & Cécile Godé & Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, 2017. "Les enjeux des environnements big data pour la Police Nationale," Post-Print halshs-02188803, HAL.
    16. Clayton Wukich & Scott E. Robinson, 2013. "Leadership Strategies at the Meso Level of Emergency Management Networks," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 41-59, April.
    17. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1999. "Forecasting for Marketing," MPRA Paper 81690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Dinesh Puranam & Vishal Narayan & Vrinda Kadiyali, 2017. "The Effect of Calorie Posting Regulation on Consumer Opinion: A Flexible Latent Dirichlet Allocation Model with Informative Priors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 726-746, September.
    19. Padraig MacNeela & Anne Scott & Pearl Treacy & Abbey Hyde, 2010. "In the know: cognitive and social factors in mental health nursing assessment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(9‐10), pages 1298-1306, May.
    20. Alvarado-Valencia, Jorge & Barrero, Lope H. & Önkal, Dilek & Dennerlein, Jack T., 2017. "Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 298-313.
    21. Greg Fisher & Emily Neubert, 2023. "Evaluating Ventures Fast and Slow: Sensemaking, Intuition, and Deliberation in Entrepreneurial Resource Provision Decisions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1298-1326, July.

    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.