Why do you expect prediction markets to be more useful for this than evidence-based methods which take into account interactions between the practitioner’s characteristics and whatever method they are using?
I’m not advocating what Hanson calls prediction-markets. I’m advocating a different setup that’s described in the linked article.
The core problem is that even if it would be possible in a perfect world to run evidence-based studies to gather the knowledge in the present system there are no economic incentives for anybody to run the required studies in a way that’s likely to lead to effective clinical predictions. There’s no accountability that pushes clinical trial design in a way that leads to clear clinical benefits. The incentives are mostly about overstating the effect of the intervention that’s studied.
Even if there would be a sincere attempt at running the required studies it would be much more expensive than the way we currently study interventions and that means we are likely to study less interventions and thereby slowing down innovation by making the invention of new interventions more costly.
Why do you expect prediction markets to be more useful for this than evidence-based methods which take into account interactions between the practitioner’s characteristics and whatever method they are using?
I’m not advocating what Hanson calls prediction-markets. I’m advocating a different setup that’s described in the linked article.
The core problem is that even if it would be possible in a perfect world to run evidence-based studies to gather the knowledge in the present system there are no economic incentives for anybody to run the required studies in a way that’s likely to lead to effective clinical predictions. There’s no accountability that pushes clinical trial design in a way that leads to clear clinical benefits. The incentives are mostly about overstating the effect of the intervention that’s studied.
Even if there would be a sincere attempt at running the required studies it would be much more expensive than the way we currently study interventions and that means we are likely to study less interventions and thereby slowing down innovation by making the invention of new interventions more costly.