ArticleJournal of the European Economic Association2022
Precise or Imprecise Probabilities? Evidence from Survey Response Related to Late-Onset Dementia.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliable machine learning models in genomic medicine using conformal prediction.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- MORTALITY RISK INFORMATION, SURVIVAL EXPECTATIONS AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS.Economic journal (London, England) · 2024Article
- Tail and Center Rounding of Probabilistic Expectations in the Health and Retirement Study.Journal of econometrics · 2022Article
- Handling of uncertainty in medical data using machine learning and probability theory techniques: a review of 30 years (1991-2020).Annals of operations research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.