Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Bayesian reasoning
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Use in medicine== Bayesian reasoning comes up in medicine and scientific research with regard to the correct interpretation of test results, particularly in accurately accounting for the possibility of a [[false positive]] or [[false negative]]. Clinicians and patients alike frequently show difficulty accurately incorporating those possibilities to predict how reliable a given test result is. To illustrate the difference Bayesian reasoning can make in a health care setting, artificial intelligence researcher [[Eliezer S. Yudkowsky]] offers the following hypothetical. Imagine if it were the case that:<blockquote>"1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer.ย 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies.ย 9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies.ย A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening.ย What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?"<ref name=":1">{{Cite web | url = http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes | title = Yudkowsky - Bayes' Theorem | website = yudkowsky.net | access-date = 2019-02-26}}</ref></blockquote>Yudkowsky cites studies in the 1970s through the 1990s in which only 15% doctors got the type of question right.<ref name=":1" /> Most estimated that the woman had a 70 or 80% chance of having breast cancer in light of the positive mammogram.<ref name=":1" /> In fact, the odds the hypothetical woman has breast cancer is 7.8%. This is because of the large number of [[false positives]]: since 99% of women in the age group do not have breast cancer and of them, 9.6% still test positive (a false negative), testing a group of 10,000 women would produce 950 false positives. Meanwhile, only 100 women (1% of the 10,000 women in the data sample) would have breast cancer, and the mammogram would detect it 80% of the time, producing 80 true positives. Thus only 80 of 1030 positive mammograms, or 7.8%, actually reflected the presence of cancer in this hypothetical.<ref name=":1" /> This example emphasizes the necessity of exercising caution when revising a belief based on new information. Prior to the mammogram, a woman in this hypothetical would have expected to have a 1% chance of having breast cancer. The positive mammogram result changes the prediction, but by far less than one might estimate. Bayesian reason encourages careful attention to how much new evidence should weigh on the revision of a hypothesis.
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs