Комментарии:
If I get 9% of chance by having the disease given that I tested positive, does it mean that taking other test I have to update P(B) from 0.001 to 0.09?
So It would be:
P(B|A) = [(0.99)*(0.09)]/[(0.99)*(0.09) + (0.01)*(0.91)] = 90.7%
Really enjoying the lecture series - thank you so much for taking the time, I'm learning a lot.
Just a small point relating to binary classification terminology, which I think is confusing on the best of days. In your notation: P( + |D) = probability of testing positive if disease is present (ie, the test sensitivity). Then P( + |ND) = 1 - specificity, where test specificity = P( - |ND), or the probability of testing negative if you don't have the disease.
Accuracy, as I understand, is commonly defined as the total proportion of correct tests divided by all tests (ie true pos + true neg / (all outcomes)), but here you equate it with sensitivity, and then imply that P(+ |ND) = 1 - P(+ | D). (Which is this particular case it may be! - if P(+|D) = P(-|ND)).
Thanks again for the great content.
Thanks a lot professor for this very useful series.
I have question , is correct to have: P(+|disease absent)=1-p(+|disease present) ?
A real Master class on Bayes' (really Bayes-Laplace) Theorem. The best comprehensive treatment of the concept. Wow!
ОтветитьFor those of you taking this course; Is there a textbook that you're supposed to use with it?
ОтветитьAmazing explanation of this concept.
Ответитьperfect
Ответитьoutstanding presentation. Too bad this didn't exist at the start of the semester (finals are a week away).
ОтветитьThat is belief calculus, not probably. You are calculating the strength of a belief given complete (100%) "belief" in the probabilities.
What prob and stat fails to do is calculate the strength of the underlying belief, and assumes that strength is 100% certain.
The truth is that, if there is cause and effect, the probabilities are meaningless, and the cause exists, or it doesn't.
I have a bit of an issue with your coin example because those are all independent tests... Otherwise great video, thanks!
ОтветитьThank you for the informed video. I have one point, it may be obvious to you but it’s not obvious to someone who is new to stats.
ОтветитьThe most clear and accessible explanation of Bayes! Thanks
ОтветитьI dont understand sir what game is being played in my life
ОтветитьAwesome explanation
ОтветитьCancer!? How about A -you've won the Lottery or B you have spent your money for nothing and you have not won the Lottery? I don't really care for the C word! No offense -there are some people waiting on test results! P.S., I love your lectures!
Ответить