 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,161 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Submission declined on 12 March 2025 by ToadetteEdit (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 29 December 2024 by WaddlesJP13 (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Declined by WaddlesJP13 4 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 29 December 2024 by SafariScribe (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Declined by SafariScribe 4 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 23 December 2024 by CSMention269 (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: Declined by CSMention269 4 months ago.
| |
Clinical and statistical prediction are two distinct methods used to integrate multiple data points for decision-making across various domains.[1][2] Clinical prediction relies on human judgment, expertise, and experience to mentally integrate information, while statistical prediction employs mathematical formulas, algorithms, or models to systematically combine quantitative data. These approaches emerged as formal concepts in the mid-20th century, though their underlying principles have been practiced much longer.
These prediction methods have applications across fields including medicine, psychology, criminal justice, business forecasting, personnel selection, and education. In practice, clinical prediction remains the dominant approach in most of these fields. For example, clinicians typically rely on their professional judgment when combining symptom data, test results, and patient history to reach diagnoses or treatment decisions, rather than using statistical formulas. Similarly, in criminal justice, while statistical tools exist for assessing recidivism risk, many consequential decisions about sentencing and parole continue to be made primarily through clinical judgment.
The comparative accuracy of these approaches has been extensively studied since the 1950s, with Paul Meehl's 1954 publication "Clinical versus Statistical Prediction" serving as a landmark contribution to this field.[3][4] Meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated that statistical methods typically match or exceed the accuracy of clinical prediction.[5]
Multiple studies have shown that even simple statistical models with equally weighted or randomly weighted variables often outperform expert clinical judgment in specific predictive tasks.[6][7] Despite this substantial body of evidence supporting the efficacy of statistical approaches, clinical prediction continues to dominate professional practice in many fields.
- ^ Grove, W. M., & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.192
- ^ Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- ^ Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. William Collins.
- ^ L.A. Times Archives. (2003, February 20). Paul E. Meehl, 83; Psychologist Linked Schizophrenia to Genes. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-feb-20-me-meehl20-story.html
- ^ Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. William Collins.
- ^ Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. William Collins.
- ^ Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 195–217). Cambridge University Press.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search