ReviewPaediatric anaesthesia2025
Flipping the Conditional: Why We Are Probably Wrong About Probabilities.
Review in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Flipping the Conditional: Why We Are Probably Wrong About Probabilities.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flipping the conditional is an error of reasoning that occurs when we inadvertently transpose the terms in a conditional probability. A conditional probability arises when the probability of an event occurring (e.g., a positive test result) depends on another event being true (e.g., the presence of a disease). The ordering of terms in a conditional probability is crucially important, and the consequences of transposing the terms can be severe. The error of reasoning is most easily entertained when events are very rare. Flipping the conditional explains why we sometimes misinterpret clinical and diagnostic tests and also underpins a phenomenon known as the "prosecutor's fallacy". Flipping the conditional occurs when we confuse the sensitivity of a diagnostic test with the positive predictive value. The prosecutor's fallacy involves confusing the probability a person is guilty given the evidence with the probability of the evidence given they are guilty. Perhaps the best-known example of the prosecutor's fallacy is that of UK solicitor Sally Clark, who in 1990 was convicted of murdering her two infant sons. Recently, the prosecutor's fallacy has again been in the news, with respect to the statistical evidence presented at the trial of UK nurse, Lucy Letby. In this article, we define the concept of conditional probability and discuss some examples of flipping the conditional that are relevant to pediatric anesthesia and to medical evidence presented at trial.
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.