通过决策理论整合分类报告和评估报告,提高法医学的透明度

M. Sigman, Mary R. Williams
{"title":"通过决策理论整合分类报告和评估报告,提高法医学的透明度","authors":"M. Sigman, Mary R. Williams","doi":"10.3389/frans.2023.1105642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forensic science standards often require the analyst to report in categorical terms. Categorical reporting without reference to the strength of the evidence, or the strength threshold that must be met to sustain or justify the decision, obscures the decision-making process, and allows for inconsistency and bias. Standards that promote reporting in probabilistic terms require the analyst to report the strength of the evidence without offering a conclusive interpretation of the evidence. Probabilistic reporting is often based on a likelihood ratio which depends on calibrated probabilities. While probabilistic reporting may be more objective and less open to bias than categorical reporting, the report can be difficult for a lay jury to interpret. These reporting methods may appear disparate, but the relationship between the two is easily understood and visualized by a simple decision theory construct known as the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Implementing ROC-facilitated reporting through an expanded proficiency testing regime may provide transparency in categorical reporting and potentially obviate some of the lay jury interpretation issues associated with probabilistic reporting.","PeriodicalId":73063,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in analytical science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promoting transparency in forensic science by integrating categorical and evaluative reporting through decision theory\",\"authors\":\"M. Sigman, Mary R. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frans.2023.1105642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Forensic science standards often require the analyst to report in categorical terms. Categorical reporting without reference to the strength of the evidence, or the strength threshold that must be met to sustain or justify the decision, obscures the decision-making process, and allows for inconsistency and bias. Standards that promote reporting in probabilistic terms require the analyst to report the strength of the evidence without offering a conclusive interpretation of the evidence. Probabilistic reporting is often based on a likelihood ratio which depends on calibrated probabilities. While probabilistic reporting may be more objective and less open to bias than categorical reporting, the report can be difficult for a lay jury to interpret. These reporting methods may appear disparate, but the relationship between the two is easily understood and visualized by a simple decision theory construct known as the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Implementing ROC-facilitated reporting through an expanded proficiency testing regime may provide transparency in categorical reporting and potentially obviate some of the lay jury interpretation issues associated with probabilistic reporting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in analytical science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in analytical science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frans.2023.1105642\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in analytical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frans.2023.1105642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法医学标准通常要求分析员以明确的术语进行报告。分类报告没有提及证据的强度,或为维持或证明决策的合理性而必须达到的强度阈值,这掩盖了决策过程,并导致不一致和偏见。促进概率报告的标准要求分析员报告证据的强度,而不提供对证据的结论性解释。概率报告通常基于似然比,该似然比取决于校准的概率。虽然概率报告可能比分类报告更客观,更不容易产生偏见,但非专业陪审团可能很难解读该报告。这些报告方法可能看起来不同,但两者之间的关系很容易理解,并通过一个简单的决策理论结构(称为受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线)可视化。通过扩大能力测试制度实施ROC促进的报告可以提供分类报告的透明度,并可能避免与概率报告相关的一些非专业陪审团解释问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Promoting transparency in forensic science by integrating categorical and evaluative reporting through decision theory
Forensic science standards often require the analyst to report in categorical terms. Categorical reporting without reference to the strength of the evidence, or the strength threshold that must be met to sustain or justify the decision, obscures the decision-making process, and allows for inconsistency and bias. Standards that promote reporting in probabilistic terms require the analyst to report the strength of the evidence without offering a conclusive interpretation of the evidence. Probabilistic reporting is often based on a likelihood ratio which depends on calibrated probabilities. While probabilistic reporting may be more objective and less open to bias than categorical reporting, the report can be difficult for a lay jury to interpret. These reporting methods may appear disparate, but the relationship between the two is easily understood and visualized by a simple decision theory construct known as the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Implementing ROC-facilitated reporting through an expanded proficiency testing regime may provide transparency in categorical reporting and potentially obviate some of the lay jury interpretation issues associated with probabilistic reporting.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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