By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
  • Analytics
    AnalyticsShow More
    data Analytics instagram stories
    Data Analytics Helps Marketers Make the Most of Instagram Stories
    15 Min Read
    analyst,women,looking,at,kpi,data,on,computer,screen
    What to Know Before Recruiting an Analyst to Handle Company Data
    6 Min Read
    AI analytics
    AI-Based Analytics Are Changing the Future of Credit Cards
    6 Min Read
    data overload showing data analytics
    How Does Next-Gen SIEM Prevent Data Overload For Security Analysts?
    8 Min Read
    hire a marketing agency with a background in data analytics
    5 Reasons to Hire a Marketing Agency that Knows Data Analytics
    7 Min Read
  • Big Data
  • BI
  • Exclusive
  • IT
  • Marketing
  • Software
Search
© 2008-23 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: NYT on breast cancer screening and probabilty
Share
Notification Show More
Aa
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
Aa
Search
  • About
  • Help
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-23 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
SmartData Collective > Uncategorized > NYT on breast cancer screening and probabilty
Uncategorized

NYT on breast cancer screening and probabilty

DavidMSmith
Last updated: 2009/12/17 at 12:10 PM
DavidMSmith
4 Min Read
SHARE

The New York Times last weekend looked at the controversy around the recent changes to the mammogram guidelines from a mathematical perspective. Compared to the analysis based on Bayes’ Theorem from the Harvard Social Science Statistics blog (which apparently caused some controversy itself: that post was deleted and later replaced after some errors apparently crept into the calculations), this article argues from a simple scenario with made-up (but plausible) numbers:

Assume there is a screening test for a certain cancer that is 95 percent accurate; that is, if someone has the cancer, the test will be positive 95 percent of the time. Let’s also assume that if someone doesn’t have the cancer, the test will be positive just 1 percent of the time. Assume further that 0.5 percent — one out of 200 people — actually have this type of cancer. Now imagine that you’ve taken the test and that your doctor somberly intones that you’ve tested positive. Does this mean you’re likely to have the cancer? Surprisingly, the answer is no.

To see why, let’s suppose 100,000 screenings for this cancer are conducted. Of these, how many are positive? On average, 500 of these 100,000 people (0.5 …

More Read

The Human Factor Continually Confounds Probability Models

Probability and Karl Rove
Why Can’t We Just Use Prediction Markets?
When improbable events are expected



The New York Times last weekend looked at the controversy around the recent changes to the mammogram guidelines from a mathematical perspective. Compared to the analysis based on Bayes’ Theorem from the Harvard Social Science Statistics blog (which apparently caused some controversy itself: that post was deleted and later replaced after some errors apparently crept into the calculations), this article argues from a simple scenario with made-up (but plausible) numbers:

Assume there is a screening test for a certain cancer that is 95 percent accurate; that is, if someone has the cancer, the test will be positive 95 percent of the time. Let’s also assume that if someone doesn’t have the cancer, the test will be positive just 1 percent of the time. Assume further that 0.5 percent — one out of 200 people — actually have this type of cancer. Now imagine that you’ve taken the test and that your doctor somberly intones that you’ve tested positive. Does this mean you’re likely to have the cancer? Surprisingly, the answer is no.

To see why, let’s suppose 100,000 screenings for this cancer are conducted. Of these, how many are positive? On average, 500 of these 100,000 people (0.5 percent of 100,000) will have cancer, and so, since 95 percent of these 500 people will test positive, we will have, on average, 475 positive tests (.95 x 500). Of the 99,500 people without cancer, 1 percent will test positive for a total of 995 false-positive tests (.01 x 99,500 = 995). Thus of the total of 1,470 positive tests (995 + 475 = 1,470), most of them (995) will be false positives, and so the probability of having this cancer given that you tested positive for it is only 475/1,470, or about 32 percent! This is to be contrasted with the probability that you will test positive given that you have the cancer, which by assumption is 95 percent.

It’s a nice example of how our intuition about probabilities can often be out of step with reality.

New York Times: Mammogram Math

Link to original post

TAGGED: probability
DavidMSmith December 17, 2009
Share This Article
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn
Share

Follow us on Facebook

Latest News

ai low code frameworks
AI Can Help Accelerate Development with Low-Code Frameworks
Artificial Intelligence
data Analytics instagram stories
Data Analytics Helps Marketers Make the Most of Instagram Stories
Analytics
data breaches
How Hospital Security Breaches Devastate Local Communities
Policy and Governance
analyst,women,looking,at,kpi,data,on,computer,screen
What to Know Before Recruiting an Analyst to Handle Company Data
Analytics

Stay Connected

1.2k Followers Like
33.7k Followers Follow
222 Followers Pin

You Might also Like

The Human Factor Continually Confounds Probability Models

3 Min Read

Probability and Karl Rove

2 Min Read

Why Can’t We Just Use Prediction Markets?

6 Min Read

When improbable events are expected

5 Min Read

SmartData Collective is one of the largest & trusted community covering technical content about Big Data, BI, Cloud, Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, IoT & more.

AI and chatbots
Chatbots and SEO: How Can Chatbots Improve Your SEO Ranking?
Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Exclusive
AI chatbots
AI Chatbots Can Help Retailers Convert Live Broadcast Viewers into Sales!
Chatbots

Quick Link

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-23 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Go to mobile version
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?