ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Modeling decision-making under uncertainty with qualitative outcomes.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modeling decision-making under uncertainty typically relies on quantitative outcomes. Many decisions, however, are qualitative in nature, posing problems for traditional models. Here, we aimed to model uncertainty attitudes in decisions with qualitative outcomes. Participants made choices between certain outcomes and the chance for more favorable outcomes in quantitative (monetary) and qualitative (medical) modalities. Using computational modeling, we estimated the values participants assigned to qualitative outcomes and compared uncertainty attitudes across domains. Our model provided a good fit for the data, including quantitative estimates for qualitative outcomes. The model outperformed a utility function in quantitative decisions. Additionally, we found an association between ambiguity attitudes across domains. Results were replicated in an independent sample. We demonstrate the ability to extract quantitative measures from qualitative outcomes, leading to better estimation of subjective values. This allows for the characterization of individual behavior traits under a wide range of conditions.
Indexed as
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.