Calculated Risks¶
Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. Simon & Schuster.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- False Positive Paradox
- In medical screening it is canonical: mammography, low-prevalence HIV testing, prostate-antigen tests, and neonatal screens for rare disorders all produce majority-false flags when the prior is small, which is why two-stage protocols exist.
This sourceWorks screening-test natural-frequency examples (mammography, HIV) showing most positives are false under a low base rate even with high sensitivity and specificity, supporting the medical-screening use and the worked PPV-collapse example (e.g., 9 of 10 positives false).
- In medical screening it is canonical: mammography, low-prevalence HIV testing, prostate-antigen tests, and neonatal screens for rare disorders all produce majority-false flags when the prior is small, which is why two-stage protocols exist.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:70c2198dad94 · see in the full table