疑似连环杀手和不为人知的统计失误。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
John O'Quigley
{"title":"疑似连环杀手和不为人知的统计失误。","authors":"John O'Quigley","doi":"10.1177/00258024241242549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A whole branch of theoretical statistics devotes itself to the analysis of clusters, the aim being to distinguish an apparent cluster arising randomly from one that is more likely to have been produced as a result of some systematic influence. There are many examples in medicine and some that involve both medicine and the legal field; criminal law in particular. Observed clusters or a series of cases in a given setting can set off alarm bells, the recent conviction of Lucy Letby in England being an example. It was an observed cluster, a series of deaths among neonates, that prompted the investigation of Letby. There have been other similar cases in the past and there will be similar cases in the future. Our purpose is not to reconsider any particular trial but, rather, to work with similar, indeed more extreme numbers of cases as a way to underline the statistical mistakes that can be made when attempting to make sense of the data. These notions are illustrated via a made-up case of 10 incidents where the anticipated count was only 2. The most common statistical analysis would associate a probability of less than 0.00005 with this outcome: A very rare event. However, a more careful analysis that avoids common pitfalls results in a probability close to 0.5, indicating that, given the circumstances, we were as likely to see 10 or more as we were to see less than 10.</p>","PeriodicalId":18484,"journal":{"name":"Medicine, Science and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders.\",\"authors\":\"John O'Quigley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00258024241242549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A whole branch of theoretical statistics devotes itself to the analysis of clusters, the aim being to distinguish an apparent cluster arising randomly from one that is more likely to have been produced as a result of some systematic influence. There are many examples in medicine and some that involve both medicine and the legal field; criminal law in particular. Observed clusters or a series of cases in a given setting can set off alarm bells, the recent conviction of Lucy Letby in England being an example. It was an observed cluster, a series of deaths among neonates, that prompted the investigation of Letby. There have been other similar cases in the past and there will be similar cases in the future. Our purpose is not to reconsider any particular trial but, rather, to work with similar, indeed more extreme numbers of cases as a way to underline the statistical mistakes that can be made when attempting to make sense of the data. These notions are illustrated via a made-up case of 10 incidents where the anticipated count was only 2. The most common statistical analysis would associate a probability of less than 0.00005 with this outcome: A very rare event. However, a more careful analysis that avoids common pitfalls results in a probability close to 0.5, indicating that, given the circumstances, we were as likely to see 10 or more as we were to see less than 10.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine, Science and the Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine, Science and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00258024241242549\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine, Science and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00258024241242549","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理论统计学有一个完整的分支专门研究聚类分析,目的是将随机产生的明显聚类与更有可能是受某种系统影响而产生的聚类区分开来。在医学领域有很多这样的例子,有些例子同时涉及医学和法律领域,尤其是刑法。在特定环境下观察到的案件群或一系列案件可能会敲响警钟,最近英国对露西-莱特比的定罪就是一个例子。对莱特比进行调查的原因是观察到的集群现象,即一系列新生儿死亡事件。过去有其他类似案件,将来还会有类似案件。我们的目的不是要重新考虑任何特定的试验,而是要通过类似的、甚至更极端的病例来强调在试图理解数据时可能会犯的统计错误。最常见的统计分析会将小于 0.00005 的概率与这一结果联系起来:这是一个非常罕见的事件。然而,通过避免常见误区的更仔细的分析,得出的概率接近 0.5,表明在这种情况下,我们看到 10 起或更多事件的可能性与看到少于 10 起事件的可能性相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Suspected serial killers and unsuspected statistical blunders.

A whole branch of theoretical statistics devotes itself to the analysis of clusters, the aim being to distinguish an apparent cluster arising randomly from one that is more likely to have been produced as a result of some systematic influence. There are many examples in medicine and some that involve both medicine and the legal field; criminal law in particular. Observed clusters or a series of cases in a given setting can set off alarm bells, the recent conviction of Lucy Letby in England being an example. It was an observed cluster, a series of deaths among neonates, that prompted the investigation of Letby. There have been other similar cases in the past and there will be similar cases in the future. Our purpose is not to reconsider any particular trial but, rather, to work with similar, indeed more extreme numbers of cases as a way to underline the statistical mistakes that can be made when attempting to make sense of the data. These notions are illustrated via a made-up case of 10 incidents where the anticipated count was only 2. The most common statistical analysis would associate a probability of less than 0.00005 with this outcome: A very rare event. However, a more careful analysis that avoids common pitfalls results in a probability close to 0.5, indicating that, given the circumstances, we were as likely to see 10 or more as we were to see less than 10.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medicine, Science and the Law
Medicine, Science and the Law 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
53
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medicine, Science and the Law is the official journal of the British Academy for Forensic Sciences (BAFS). It is a peer reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the knowledge of forensic science and medicine. The journal aims to inform its readers from a broad perspective and demonstrate the interrelated nature and scope of the forensic disciplines. Through a variety of authoritative research articles submitted from across the globe, it covers a range of topical medico-legal issues. The journal keeps its readers informed of developments and trends through reporting, discussing and debating current issues of importance in forensic practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信