This week we'll explore the "From Data to Decision" critical thinking exercise on page
451. Be sure your post addresses (in nice detail) each of the questions in the Analyzing
the Results section! I appreciate posts that are truly critical thinking—really chews on the
practice of having dogs detect diseases from different perspectives :-). (good luck!)
a. Given that each trial involved six healthy samples and one
sample from a patient with bladder cancer, what is the
probability that a dog would select the cancer sample if it made
a random guess?
This one was easy: out 7 there is only one with the cancer,
hence: 1-7
The dogs did better than a random guessing would be. They do
have some talent.
d. Assuming the dogs did better than what would be expected
with random guessing, did they do well enough to be used for
actual medical diagnoses? Why or why not?
I think that they should be used in diagnoses, not as a 100%
belief but as a guild that could help early detection and with
cancer the earlier it is found the better chances of beating it.