jiaping wang department of mathematical science 01/30/2013, wednesday
DESCRIPTION
Chapter 3. Conditional Probability and Independence Section 3.3. Theorem of Total Probability and Bayes ’ Rule Section 3.4 Odds, Odds Ratios, and Relative Risk. Jiaping Wang Department of Mathematical Science 01/30/2013, Wednesday. Outline. Theorem of Total Probability Bayes ’ Rule - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Chapter 3. Conditional Probability and Independence
Section 3.3. Theorem of Total Probability and Bayes’ Rule
Section 3.4 Odds, Odds Ratios, and Relative Risk
Jiaping Wang
Department of Mathematical Science
01/30/2013, Wednesday
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Outline
Theorem of Total Probability
Bayes’ Rule Odds, Odds Ratios and Relative Risk
Homework #3
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Part 1. Theorem of Total Probability
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Theorem 3.2
Consider an example, if there is a partition B1 and B2 such that B1UB2=S and B1∩B2=ø, then we can find A = (A∩B1) U (A∩B2) and thus P(A)=P(A∩B1) +P(A∩B2)=P(A|B1)P(B1)+P(A|B2)P(B2)
Theorem of Total Probability:If B1, B2, …, Bk is a collection of mutually exclusive and
exhaustive events, then for any event A, we have
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
A company buys microchips from three suppliers-I, II, and III. Supplier I has a record of providing microchips that contain 10% defectives; Supplier II has a defective rate of 5% and Supplier III has a defective rate of 2%. Suppose that 20%, 35% and 45% of the current supply came from Suppliers I, II, and III, respectively. If a microchip is selected at random from this supply, what is the probability that it is defective?
Example 3.8
Solution: BI={Chip comes from Supplier I}, BII, BIII, D denote defective, ND – non-defective. P(BI∩D)=0.20(0.10)=0.02, P(BI∩ND)=0.18, P(BII∩D)=0.175, P(BII∩ND)=0.3325, P(BIII∩D)=0.009, P(BIII∩ND)=0.441. P(BI)=0.20, P(BII)=0.35, P(BIII)=0.45. So by Law of Total Probability, P(D)=P(D|BI)P(BI)+P(D|BII)P(BII)+P(D|BIII)P(BIII)=0.0465.
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Part 2. Bayes’ Rule
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Theorem 3.3
Bayes’ Rule. If the events B1, B2, …, Bk form a partition of the sample space S, and A is any event in S, then
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Example 3.9
Consider again the information from Example 3.8. If a random selected microchip is defective, what is the probability that it came from Supplier II?
Solution: By Bayes’ rule, P(BII|D)=P(D|BII)P(BII)/P(D)=0.376
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Part 3. Odds, Odds Ratios, and Relative Risk
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
An Example
The Physicians’ Health study on the effects of aspirin on heart attacks randomly assigned to 22,000 male physicians to either the “aspirin” or “placebo” arm of the study. The data on myocardial infarctions (MI) are given in table.
MI No MI TotalAspirin 139 10,898 11,037Placebo 239 10,795 11034Total 378 21,683 22,071
One my talk about what are the odds in favor of MI over non-MI. The odds in favor of anevent A is the ratio of the probability of A to the probability of the complement of A. For aspirin P(MI)/P(non-MI)=(139/11037)/(10898/11037)=139/10898=0.013; For placebo,P(MI)/P(non-MI)=239/10796=0.022, which shows odds of heart attach with placebo ishigher than the risk with aspirin,
the odds ratio = Odds of MI with aspirin/odds of MI without aspirin=0.59<1.
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Definitions of Odds, Odds Ratios, andRelative Risk
Yes NoA a bB c d
Odds ratios form a useful summary of the frequencies in a 2x2(two-way) frequency table.
The odds in favor of A =a/b, odds in favor of B=c/dThe odds ratio = a*d/b*c.The relative risk is the ratio of the probability of an event in the treatment group to the probability of same event in the placebo group,Relative risk = P(Yes|A)/P(Yes|B)=[a/(a+b)]/[c/(c+d)]=a(c+d)/c(a+b).
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Example 3.10
The Physicaians’ Health Study included only men and the results clearly indicated that taking a low dose of aspirin reduced the risk of MI. In 2005, the results of the Women’s Health study were published in the table. This study randomized almost 40,000 women, ages 45 and older, to either aspirin or placebo and followed the women for 10 years.
MI No MI TotalAspirin 198 19,736 19,934Placebo 193 19,749 19,942Total 391 39,485 39,876
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Example 3.10 Continue
a. Find the odds of MI for the aspirin group.b. Find the odds of MI for the placebo group.c. Find the odds ratio of MI for the aspirin and placebo
groups.d. Find the relative risk of MI for the aspirin and placebo
group.
Solutions: a. Odds for the aspirin: P(MI)/P(non-MI)=198/19736 b. Odds for the placebo: P(MI)/P(non-MI)=193/19749 c. Odds ratio = 198/19736*19749/193=1.01 > 1 d. Relative risk = 198/19934*19942/193=1.03>1
Which means low-dose aspirin regime is not effective for reducing MI for women.
The UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA at CHAPEL HILL
Homework 3
Page 66: 3.2Page 67: 3.6, 3.11, 3.14Page 76: 3.27Page 77: 3.32, 3.34, 3.36Page 81: 3.44Page 86: 3.55
Due on Wednesday, 02/06/2013.