|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Covariance Decomposition of the Probability Score and Its Use in Evaluating Prognostic Estimates
Hal R. Arkes, PhD, Neal V. Dawson, Md, Theodore Speroff, PhD, Frank E. Harrell, Jr., PhD, Carlos Alzola, Ms, Russell Phillips, Md, Norman Desbiens, Md, Robert K. Oye, Md, William Knaus, Md, Alfred F. Connors, Jr., Md, and the Support Investigators
The probability score (PS) or Brier score has been used in a large number of studies in which physician judgment performance was assessed. However, the covariance decom position of the PS has not previously been used to evaluate medical judgment. The authors introduce the technique and demonstrate it by analyzing prognostic estimates of three groups: physicians, their patients, and the patients' decision-making surrogates. The major com ponents of the covariance decomposition—bias, slope, and scatter—are displayed in co variance graphs for each of the three groups. The decomposition reveals that whereas the physicians have the best overall estimation performance, their bias and their scatter are not always superior to those of the other two groups. This is primarily due to two factors. First, the physicians' prognostic estimates are pessimistic. Second, the patients place the large majority of their estimates in the most optimistic category, thereby achieving low scatter. The authors suggest that the calculational simplicity of this decomposition, its informative- ness, and the intuitive nature of its components make it a useful tool with which to analyze medical judgment. Key words: covariance decomposition; calibration; prognostic estimation; surrogate; probability score. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:120-131)
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 15, No. 2,
120-131 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500204
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
F Kee, T Owen, and R Leathem
Offering a prognosis in lung cancer: when is a team of experts an expert team?
J Epidemiol Community Health,
April 1, 2007;
61(4):
308 - 313.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Rakow, C. Vincent, K. Bull, and N. Harvey
Assessing the Likelihood of an Important Clinical Outcome: New Insights from a Comparison of Clinical and Actuarial Judgment
Med Decis Making,
May 1, 2005;
25(3):
262 - 282.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Margolis, J. M. Gelfand, O. Hoffstad, and J. A. Berlin
Surrogate End Points for the Treatment of Diabetic Neuropathic Foot Ulcers
Diabetes Care,
June 1, 2003;
26(6):
1696 - 1700.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Pearson, I. Laurora, H. Chu, and S. Kafonek
The Lipid Treatment Assessment Project (L-TAP): A Multicenter Survey to Evaluate the Percentages of Dyslipidemic Patients Receiving Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals
Arch Intern Med,
February 28, 2000;
160(4):
459 - 467.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Margolis, A. C. Halpern, T. Rebbeck, L. Schuchter, R. L. Barnhill, J. Fine, and M. Berwick
Validation of a Melanoma Prognostic Model
Arch Dermatol,
December 1, 1998;
134(12):
1597 - 1601.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Christakis and T. J. Iwashyna
Attitude and Self-reported Practice Regarding Prognostication in a National Sample of Internists
Arch Intern Med,
November 23, 1998;
158(21):
2389 - 2395.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPORT Principal Investigators, A. F. Connors Jr, N. V. Dawson, N. A. Desbiens, W. J. Fulkerson Jr, L. Goldman, W. A. Knaus, J. Lynn, R. K. Oye, W. A. Knaus, et al.
A Controlled Trial to Improve Care for Seriously III Hospitalized Patients: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)
JAMA,
November 22, 1995;
274(20):
1591 - 1598.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
