2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I believe that much of the controversy around screening tests are based on an inability to intuitively understand statistics.  A great article in Scientific American Mind earlier this year awakened me to this fact. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=knowing-your-chances)  

When given the stats for breast cancer frequency and the false-positive rate for mammograms, 160 gynecologists were asked "What is the chance that a woman with a positive result on a mammogram actually has breast cancer?" 

From four choices, 60 percent of the gynecologists answered that there was a 81 or 90 percent chance the woman has breast cancer.  Only 20 percent of the gynecologists did the math correctly, yielding the correct answer that the woman has only a 10 percent chance of having cancer.  9 out of 10 women, in this hypothetical example based on real statistics, would be unnecessarily alarmed, and their alarm would  would be compounded by their physician's lack of proper statistical perspective.  Not to blame physicians (I am one who would have answered wrong before I read the article), but rather to point out the dearth of statistical literacy that is present in our society.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context