Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35185399›Full record

ArticleJournal of the European Economic Association2022

Precise or Imprecise Probabilities? Evidence from Survey Response Related to Late-Onset Dementia.

Pamela Giustinelli, Charles F Manski, Francesca Molinari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the European Economic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pamela GiustinelliBocconi University, Italy.
Charles F ManskiNorthwestern University, USA.
Francesca MolinariCornell University, USA.

Funding

Statistical Data EnclaveP30AG012846 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Esther M. Friedman · 1999 to 2026
$23.2M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We elicit numerical expectations for late-onset dementia and long-term-care (LTC) outcomes in the US Health and Retirement Study. We provide the first empirical evidence on dementia-risk perceptions among dementia-free older Americans and establish important patterns regarding imprecision of subjective probabilities. Our elicitation distinguishes between precise and imprecise probabilities, while accounting for rounding of reports. Imprecise-probability respondents quantify imprecision using probability intervals. Nearly half of respondents hold imprecise dementia and LTC probabilities, while almost a third of precise-probability respondents round their reports. These proportions decrease substantially when LTC expectations are conditioned on hypothetical knowledge of the dementia state. Among rounding and imprecise-probability respondents, our elicitation yields two measures: an initial rounded or approximated response and a post-probe response, which we interpret as the respondent's true point or interval probability. We study the mapping between the two measures and find that respondents initially tend to over-report small probabilities and under-report large probabilities. Using a specific framework for study of LTC insurance choice with uncertain dementia state, we illustrate the dangers of ignoring imprecise or rounded probabilities for modeling and prediction of insurance demand.

Identifiers

PMID35185399
PMCPMC8848333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.