Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction The cut-point selection of biomarkers based on clinical benefit of test results rather than accuracy-based is of interest for decision makers. We adapted the four methods of cut-point selection based on clinical utility of test results including Youden, Product, Union and the absolute difference of total utility with 2 times of AUC. Methods The population-based parametric pairs of distributions of test results comprising homoscedastic binormal model, non-homoscedastic binormal, bigamma and biexponential included in the study. For each pair of distributions for diseased and non-diseased the utility-based metrics of cut-point were calculated under different degrees of AUC and prevalence. The prevalence was varied from 0.01 to 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50. Results For a low prevalence as low as 0.01, the two methods of Product, and Union that maximize and minimize the related metrics respectively yield rather similar a true value of cut-point but the Youden-based utility metrics suggest rather similarly the true value of for an optimal cut-point. In opposition, the Youden-based utility metric and the absolute difference of total utility with 2 times of AUC produce extremely high value for optimal cut-point because of their s-shaped metrics over various cut-off values. As prevalence increases to 10% or more, the metric of Youden -based utility becomes concave and its cut-point becomes closer to other methods. The four proposed methods yield roughly identical cut-point at prevalence of 10% or more for high accuracy of 0.90. The greater discrepancy of optimal cut-point was shown in skew distributions of bigamma and biexponential with low prevalence and low AUC. For prevalence < 10%, the utility-based produces larger cut-point than accuracy-based methods in our clinical data for CRP. The methods of utility-based cut-point selection were explained by CRP in predicting preeclampsia, and other clinical data. Conclusion The inconsistency of optimal cut-points is possible by different methods of utility-based criteria depending on the prevalence and degree of AUC. For high AUC, and prevalence > 10%, the four proposed methods yield rather identical optimal cut-points. Further studies of simulation are needed to evaluate the bias and sampling variability of utility-based of cut-point selection.

In this paper, we study how social planners should exploit social comparisons to pursue their objectives. We consider two modes of social comparison, referred to as behind-averse and ahead-seeking behaviors, depending on whether individuals experience a utility loss from underperforming or a utility gain from overperforming relative to their peers. Modeling social comparison as a game between players, we find that ahead-seeking behavior leads to output polarization, whereas behind-averse behavior leads to output clustering. A social planner can mitigate these effects in two ways: (i) by providing the full reference distribution of outputs instead of an aggregate reference point based on the average output and (ii) by assigning players into uniform rather than diverse reference groups. Social planners may thus need to tailor the reference structure to the predominant mode of social comparison and their objective. A performance-focused social planner may set the reference structure so as to maximize the output of either the top or the bottom player depending on whether she puts greater marginal weight to larger or smaller outputs. When the social planner also cares about utility, she faces a dilemma because performance optimization may not be aligned with utility maximization. Inevitably, the social planner will have to confront equity issues because better performance may not reflect greater effort or greater ability. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.

The purpose of this note is to analyze properties of the risk lovers' utility function beyond the positive sign of its second order derivative. We show that—contrarily to a priori beliefs—risk lovers are prudent and are willing to accumulate precautionary savings. (JEL D81)

Humanity is exceeding planetary boundaries, and it seems that it is unlikely to meet internationally agreed sustainable development goals. Current trends and challenges in the domain of urban sustainability assessment have proven that measuring and interpreting results regarding quality of life requires a complex analysis. The aim of this paper is to investigate the possibility of comparing, in a transparent way, urban quality of life using sustainable development indicators based on the ISO 37120 standard, taking as case studies seven selected cities: Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, Dubai, Gdynia, London, Los Angeles and Zagreb. The hypothesis reads as follows: the ISO 37120 indicators, converted into partial and total utility value, then grouped within sustainable development dimensions (environmental, economic and social) may be used to measure the level of urban quality of life. Research results indicate that there are some significant and interesting differences between the compared cities within the environmental, economic and social pillars. The analysis, conducted with the use of utility method, may facilitate taking the right decisions on urban management, planning and investment. Thus, this tool may be useful for decision makers and help cities and communities of all sizes to become more safe, resilient, prosperous, inclusive, smart and sustainable.

Two core meanings of “utility” are distinguished. “Decision utility” is the weight of an outcome in a decision. “Experienced utility” is hedonic quality, as in Bentham's usage. Experienced utility can be reported in real time (instant utility), or in retrospective evaluations of past episodes (remembered utility). Psychological research has documented systematic errors in retrospective evaluations, which can induce a preference for dominated options. We propose a formal normative theory of the total experienced utility of temporally extended outcomes. Measuring the experienced utility of outcomes permits tests of utility maximization and opens other Unes of empirical research.

In this paper, we examine the classical (so-called unrealistic) Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans model. For the corresponding differential equation, we apply the method of analytical approximation of its solutions. In subsequent works, we develop this method and apply it to problems in a more general statement.

The Theory of Taxation and Public Economicspresents a unified conceptual framework for analyzing taxation--the first to be systematically developed in several decades. An original treatment of the subject rather than a textbook synthesis, the book contains new analysis that generates novel results, including some that overturn long-standing conventional wisdom. This fresh approach should change thinking, research, and teaching for decades to come. Building on the work of James Mirrlees, Anthony Atkinson and Joseph Stiglitz, and subsequent researchers, and in the spirit of classics by A. C. Pigou, William Vickrey, and Richard Musgrave, this book steps back from particular lines of inquiry to consider the field as a whole, including the relationships among different fiscal instruments. Louis Kaplow puts forward a framework that makes it possible to rigorously examine both distributive and distortionary effects of particular policies despite their complex interactions with others. To do so, various reforms--ranging from commodity or estate and gift taxation to regulation and public goods provision--are combined with a distributively offsetting adjustment to the income tax. The resulting distribution-neutral reform package holds much constant while leaving in play the distinctive effects of the policy instrument under consideration. By applying this common methodology to disparate subjects,The Theory of Taxation and Public Economicsproduces significant cross-fertilization and yields solutions to previously intractable problems.

In this paper, we propose a model of intertemporal choice that explicitly incorporates satiation due to previous consumption in the evaluation of the utility of current consumption. In the discounted utility (DU) model, the utility of consumption is evaluated afresh in each time period. In our model, the utility of current consumption represents an incremental utility from the past level. When the time interval between consumption periods is large, and there are, therefore, no carryover effects, our model coincides with the DU model. For short time intervals between consumption periods, the satiation due to previous consumption lowers the utility of current consumption. Several implications of our model are examined, and comparisons with the DU model and the habituation model are made.

In the standard rational choice model, actors have exogenously given beliefs that perfectly match objective probabilities. As such, these beliefs cannot be optimistic or motivated by preferences, even though substantial empirical evidence indicates that human beliefs routinely satisfy neither of these criteria. I present a tractable Endogenous Beliefs Model and apply it to three different political environments from across the subfields of political science. In the model, players form beliefs that maximize a utility function that represents preferences over outcomes and the anticipatory experience of uncertainty. Applications include voter turnout, taxation and collective choice, and crisis bargaining. The model captures the empirical evidence about belief formation much better than the standard model. Moreover, these applications show how rigidly insisting on the standard rational choice model rejects otherwise reasonable explanations by fiat, precisely because of its implausible assumptions about beliefs.