Final answer:
A researcher's view on new treatment efficacy focuses more on statistical significance and clinical relevance, while marketing may emphasize absolute improvement. The magnitude of improvement also affects the perception of efficacy, with relative increases and the number of lives saved being key for researchers, while marketing highlights the percentage increase.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a new treatment increases the survival probability of a disease from 85 percent to 95 percent, a researcher might look at this result through the lens of statistical significance and clinical relevance. They would assess the relative increase in survival, as well as the actual number of lives saved and whether the improvement is statistically significant. On the other hand, the marketing department would likely highlight the absolute increase in survival rates as a persuasive selling point, emphasizing the 10 percent increase as a major improvement.
With an increase from 5 percent to 15 percent survival probability, the relative improvement is much more substantial (a 200 percent increase), but the researcher would still need to evaluate whether this represents a significant number of lives saved and if the result is statistically robust. They will also consider Type I and Type II errors in their evaluation. In this context, a Type I error could mean a patient wrongly believes the cure rate is less than 75 percent when it actually is at least 75 percent, while a Type II error could mean believing the drug has at least a 75 percent cure rate when it is in fact less, which could have more severe consequences by influencing treatment choices.