Abstract
My primary aim in this talk is to review some of what I consider to be the special merits of sequential designs in light of particular challenges that attend risk assessment for human populations. In advance of a Discussion of sequential experimentation, let me remind you of a distinction that I think is especially important given the title of this morning’s Session “Statistical Inference of Risks.” There are two kinds of “inference” that are commonly called “statistical inference,” and we must take care to distinguish them if we are to avoid unnecessary confusion about the relevance of values (as opposed to facts) in statistical inference of risks. First, we may understand a statistical inference to be an argument whose conclusion is a statement of, what philosophers tend to call, “a rational degree of belief,” i.e. a statement of evidential support. For example, we can think of statistical conclusions, inference, of the form: on the basis of data E, the probability of H: that quantity1 ≥ quantity2, is roughly. 9; that is, p(H;E) ≈. 9. Here the quantities may be place holders for risk levels (or risk indicators), e.g. a quantity may be the chance of premature death (to agents of a given type) due to increased exposure to chemical X. In Bayesian terms, the “inference,” then is to a statement of posterior probability for H, given E; where H may, itself, refer to chances (objective probability).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anscombe, F.J., “Sequential Medical Trials,” J.A.S.A., 58 (1963), 365–383.
Armitage, P., Sequential Medical Trials, Charles C. Thomas: [Springfield, IL., 1960].
—, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, 1974.
Chow, Y.S., Robbins, H., & Siegmund, D., Great Expectations: The Theory of Optimal Stopping, Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston, 1971.
Good, I.J., “On the Principle of Total Evidence,” B.J.P.S., 17, #4 (1966), 319–321.
DeGroot, M., Optimal Statistical Decisions, McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, 1970.
Hempel, C.G., “Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation,” Minn. Studies in the Phil. of Sci., 3 (1962), 98–169.
Hoel, D.G., Sobel, M., & Weiss, G.H., “A Survey of Adaptive Sampling for Clinical Trials,” in Perspectives in Biometrics, Vol. 1, R.M. Elashoff, ed., Academic Press: New York, 1975.
Levi, I., Gambling With Truth, A. Knopf: New York, 1967.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seidenfeld, T. (1981). Remarks on Sequential Designs in Risk Assessment. In: Berg, G.G., Maillie, H.D. (eds) Measurement of Risks. Environmental Science Research, vol 21. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4052-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4052-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-4054-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-4052-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive