Any statisticians here?

Post Reply
Donny osmond
Posts: 3144
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:58 pm

Any statisticians here?

Post by Donny osmond »

I've been amused by "a simple question" that is apparently given to doctors to test their understanding of "basic statistics"...

The Question:
If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1/1000 has a false positive rate of 5%, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?


Show your working, please!
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17619
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Any statisticians here?

Post by Puja »

Donny osmond wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 10:48 pm I've been amused by "a simple question" that is apparently given to doctors to test their understanding of "basic statistics"...

The Question:
If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1/1000 has a false positive rate of 5%, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?


Show your working, please!
My initial reaction was to assume that the false positive percentage was calculated over the total number of tests, which would lead to the false positives for 1000 tests being 50, meaning that the chances of a positive result means actually having the disease is 1/51.

However, that didn't pass the common sense check, because that sounded like a shit test for that disease, so a very brief google tells me false positives rates are calculated from the positive tests only, which would mean that the answer is 95% (or 19/20, if you prefer).

Is that right?

Puja
Backist Monk
Donny osmond
Posts: 3144
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Any statisticians here?

Post by Donny osmond »

Puja wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:02 am
Donny osmond wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 10:48 pm I've been amused by "a simple question" that is apparently given to doctors to test their understanding of "basic statistics"...

The Question:
If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1/1000 has a false positive rate of 5%, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?


Show your working, please!
My initial reaction was to assume that the false positive percentage was calculated over the total number of tests, which would lead to the false positives for 1000 tests being 50, meaning that the chances of a positive result means actually having the disease is 1/51.

However, that didn't pass the common sense check, because that sounded like a shit test for that disease, so a very brief google tells me false positives rates are calculated from the positive tests only, which would mean that the answer is 95% (or 19/20, if you prefer).

Is that right?

Puja
Exactly what I thought, and a lot of others, but no that's not right.

Your first instinct was closer, and actually gives - I think?? - the right answer, but I can't explain why.
Last edited by Donny osmond on Tue Aug 27, 2024 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Post Reply