Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre (VAR), Coordination Centre for Veterinary Diagnostics, Brussels, Belgium.
Prev Vet Med. 2009 Nov 15;92(3):224-34. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.020. Epub 2009 Sep 25.
A structured expert judgement study was carried out in order to obtain input parameters for a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) model. This model aimed to estimate the risk of human Salmonella infections associated with the consumption of minced pork meat. Judgements of 11 experts were used to derive subjective probability density functions (PDFs) to quantify the uncertainty on the model input parameters. The performance of experts as probability assessors was measured by the experts' ability to correctly and precisely provide estimates for a set of seed variables (=variables from the experts' area of expertise for which the true values were known to the analyst). Subsequently different weighting schemes or "decision makers" (DMs) were applied using Cooke's classical model in order to obtain combined PDFs as a weighted linear combination of the expert's individual PDFs. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four DMs namely the equal weight DM (each expert's opinion received equal weight), the user weight DM (weights are determined by the expert's self-perceived level of expertise) and two performance-based DMs: the global weight DM and the item weight DM. Weights in the performance-based DMs were calculated based on the expert's calibration and information performance as measured on the set of seed variables. The item weight DM obtained the highest performance with a calibration score of 0.62 and an information score of 0.52, as compared to the other DMs. The weights of the performance-based DMs outperformed those of the best expert in the panel. The correlation between the scores for self-rating of expertise and the weights based on the experts' performance on the calibration variables was low and not significant (r=0.37, p=0.13). The applied classical model provided a rational basis to use the combined distributions obtained by the item weight DM as input in the QMRA model since this DM yielded generally more informative distributions for the variables of interest than those obtained by the equal weight and user weight DM. Attention should be paid to find adequate and relevant seed variables, since this is important for the validation of the results of the weighting scheme.
为了获得定量微生物风险评估(QMRA)模型的输入参数,进行了一项结构化专家判断研究。该模型旨在估计与食用碎猪肉相关的人类沙门氏菌感染风险。11 位专家的判断用于得出主观概率密度函数(PDF),以量化模型输入参数的不确定性。专家作为概率评估者的表现通过专家正确和精确地为一组种子变量(=专家专业领域的变量,分析师知道这些变量的真实值)提供估计的能力来衡量。随后,使用 Cooke 的经典模型应用不同的加权方案或“决策者”(DM),以获得专家个人 PDF 的加权线性组合作为组合 PDF。本研究的目的是比较四种决策者的性能,即平等权重 DM(每个专家的意见都同等重要)、用户权重 DM(权重由专家自我感知的专业水平决定)和两种基于绩效的 DM:全局权重 DM 和项目权重 DM。基于绩效的 DM 的权重是根据专家在种子变量集上的校准和信息性能计算得出的。与其他 DM 相比,项目权重 DM 的表现最好,校准得分为 0.62,信息得分为 0.52。基于绩效的 DM 的权重优于小组中最佳专家的权重。自我评估专业知识的分数与基于专家在校准变量上的表现的权重之间的相关性较低且不显著(r=0.37,p=0.13)。所应用的经典模型为使用项目权重 DM 获得的组合分布作为 QMRA 模型的输入提供了合理的依据,因为与平等权重和用户权重 DM 相比,该 DM 通常为感兴趣的变量提供了更具信息量的分布。应注意找到足够和相关的种子变量,因为这对于加权方案结果的验证很重要。