Suppr超能文献

再谈“临床判断”:定量模型的干扰

"Clinical Judgment" revisited: the distraction of quantitative models.

作者信息

Feinstein A R

机构信息

Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 1994 May 1;120(9):799-805. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-9-199405010-00012.

Abstract

More than 25 years ago, in a book called Clinical Judgment, each act of patient care was described as having an experimental structure. The "experiments" needed substantial scientific improvement, however, in quality of basic data, taxonomic classification of phenomena, and specifications of clinical reasoning. During the past 2 decades, these improvements have not occurred as extensively as expected because many investigators working in clinical forms of clinical research have not addressed these basic scientific challenges in data, taxonomy, and reasoning. Instead, the investigators have applied quantitative "models," derived from non-clinical domains, that focus on hard data, randomized trials, Bayes theorem, quantitative decision analysis, and psychometric strategies for clinimetric measurement. Consequently, the main challenges of clinical judgment still remain generally available for basic scientific research by investigative clinicians.

摘要

25年多前,在一本名为《临床判断》的书中,每一项患者护理行为都被描述为具有实验结构。然而,这些“实验”在基础数据质量、现象的分类学分类以及临床推理规范方面需要大幅的科学改进。在过去的20年里,这些改进并未如预期那样广泛出现,因为许多从事临床研究临床形式的研究人员并未应对数据、分类学和推理方面的这些基本科学挑战。相反,这些研究人员应用了源自非临床领域的定量“模型”,这些模型侧重于硬数据、随机试验、贝叶斯定理、定量决策分析以及用于临床测量的心理测量策略。因此,临床判断的主要挑战总体上仍可供临床研究人员进行基础科学研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验