{"id":2149,"slug":"bal-2021-systematic-review-verbal-labels","title":"Bal et al. 2021 (JGIM systematic review) — \"rare\" interpretations 7-21%, \"common\" 34-71%","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["verbal-label-misinterpretation"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Bal et al. (2021, *Journal of General Internal Medicine*, systematic review) — average interpretations of:\n\n- **\"Rare\"** ranged **7-21%** across studies.\n- **\"Common\"** ranged **34-71%** across studies.\n\n**Source:** Bal et al. 2021 JGIM. **Peer-reviewed systematic review.**\n\n**Confidence:** Verified.\n\n**Why this matters for Candid:** Independent corroboration of [[budescu-2009-2014-ipcc-verbal-mistinterpret]] and [[knapp-2004-eu-verbal-misinterpret]]. The huge variance (3x for \"rare,\" 2x for \"common\") proves that unanchored verbal labels are not just slightly wrong — they are read with such variance that the same word means materially different things to different readers. The widget must anchor every tier word with definition + visual position + drivers.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"budescu-2009-2014-ipcc-verbal-mistinterpret","title":"Budescu et al. 2009/2014 — IPCC verbal terms interpreted REGRESSIVELY; numeric pairing fixes","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"knapp-2004-eu-verbal-misinterpret","title":"Knapp et al. 2004 — EU verbal frequency labels cause dramatic overestimation of medical risk","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"research-brief-smb-widget-presenting-tiers-june-2026","title":"Research brief: SMB widget presentation layer — tiered results without overclaiming (June 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}]},"created_at":"2026-06-23T20:03:32.436Z","updated_at":"2026-06-23T20:03:32.436Z"}