These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21512187)

  • 1. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities.
    Pighin S; Savadori L; Barilli E; Cremonesi L; Ferrari M; Bonnefon JF
    Med Decis Making; 2011; 31(5):721-9. PubMed ID: 21512187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Health Professionals Prefer to Communicate Risk-Related Numerical Information Using "1-in-X" Ratios.
    Sirota M; Juanchich M; Petrova D; Garcia-Retamero R; Walasek L; Bhatia S
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(3):366-376. PubMed ID: 29068246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. "1-in-X" bias: "1-in-X" format causes overestimation of health-related risks.
    Sirota M; Juanchich M; Bonnefon JF
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2018 Dec; 24(4):431-439. PubMed ID: 30247046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. IV. The subjective assessment of probability.
    Kessler S; Levine EK
    Am J Med Genet; 1987 Oct; 28(2):361-70. PubMed ID: 3425616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Ratio Format Shapes Health Decisions: The Practical Significance of the "1-in-X" Effect.
    Sirota M; Juanchich M
    Med Decis Making; 2019 Jan; 39(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 30799689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice.
    Oudhoff JP; Timmermans DR
    Med Decis Making; 2015 May; 35(4):487-500. PubMed ID: 25769496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Decisive evidence on a smaller-than-you-think phenomenon: revisiting the "1-in-X" effect on subjective medical probabilities.
    Sirota M; Juanchich M; Kostopoulou O; Hanak R
    Med Decis Making; 2014 May; 34(4):419-29. PubMed ID: 24310649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Medicine in words and numbers: a cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales.
    Witteman CL; Renooij S; Koele P
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2007 Jun; 7():13. PubMed ID: 17562000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Shared Medical Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Experienced versus Descriptive Risk Formats.
    Fraenkel L; Peters E; Tyra S; Oelberg D
    Med Decis Making; 2016 May; 36(4):518-25. PubMed ID: 26442791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Directional verbal probabilities: inconsistencies between preferential judgments and numerical meanings.
    Honda H; Yamagishi K
    Exp Psychol; 2006; 53(3):161-70. PubMed ID: 16955725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature.
    Visschers VH; Meertens RM; Passchier WW; de Vries NN
    Risk Anal; 2009 Feb; 29(2):267-87. PubMed ID: 19000070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Asking better questions: How presentation formats influence information search.
    Wu CM; Meder B; Filimon F; Nelson JD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Aug; 43(8):1274-1297. PubMed ID: 28318286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. To what extent do politeness expectations shape risk perception? Even numerical probabilities are under their spell!
    Sirota M; Juanchich M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Nov; 141(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 23098906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Communicating Down syndrome risk according to maternal age: "1-in-X" effect on perceived risk.
    Pighin S; Savadori L; Barilli E; Galbiati S; Smid M; Ferrari M; Cremonesi L
    Prenat Diagn; 2015 Aug; 35(8):777-82. PubMed ID: 25903809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Utilization of Continuous "Spinners" to Communicate Risk.
    Eyler RF; Cordes S; Szymanski BR; Fraenkel L
    Med Decis Making; 2017 Aug; 37(6):725-729. PubMed ID: 28490227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Verbal probabilities: Very likely to be somewhat more confusing than numbers.
    Wintle BC; Fraser H; Wills BC; Nicholson AE; Fidler F
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0213522. PubMed ID: 30995242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The probabilities of unique events.
    Khemlani SS; Lotstein M; Johnson-Laird P
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e45975. PubMed ID: 23056224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Distinct neuropsychological processes may mediate decision-making under uncertainty with known and unknown probability in gain and loss frames.
    Inukai K; Takahashi T
    Med Hypotheses; 2006; 67(2):283-6. PubMed ID: 16574332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Communicative functions of directional verbal probabilities: Speaker's choice, listener's inference, and reference points.
    Honda H; Yamagishi K
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Oct; 70(10):2141-2158. PubMed ID: 27550640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effects of absolute risks, relative risks, frequencies, and probabilities on decision quality.
    Covey J
    J Health Commun; 2011 Aug; 16(7):788-801. PubMed ID: 21614719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.