Channels’ Confirmation and Predictions’ Confirmation: From the Medical Test to the Raven Paradox

After long arguments between positivism and falsificationism, the verification of universal hypotheses was replaced with the confirmation of uncertain major premises. Unfortunately, Hemple proposed the Raven Paradox. Then, Carnap used the increment of logical probability as the confirmation measure. So far, many confirmation measures have been proposed. Measure F proposed by Kemeny and Oppenheim among them possesses symmetries and asymmetries proposed by Elles and Fitelson, monotonicity proposed by Greco et al., and normalizing property suggested by many researchers. Based on the semantic information theory, a measure b* similar to F is derived from the medical test. Like the likelihood ratio, measures b* and F can only indicate the quality of channels or the testing means instead of the quality of probability predictions. Furthermore, it is still not easy to use b*, F, or another measure to clarify the Raven Paradox. For this reason, measure c* similar to the correct rate is derived. Measure c* supports the Nicod Criterion and undermines the Equivalence Condition, and hence, can be used to eliminate the Raven Paradox. An example indicates that measures F and b* are helpful for diagnosing the infection of Novel Coronavirus, whereas most popular confirmation measures are not. Another example reveals that all popular confirmation measures cannot be used to explain that a black raven can confirm “Ravens are black” more strongly than a piece of chalk. Measures F, b*, and c* indicate that the existence of fewer counterexamples is more important than more positive examples’ existence, and hence, are compatible with Popper’s falsification thought

Web Based Application for Patients Medical Test System

Every semester thousands of new students enroll in University Utara Malaysia. Among them may have diseases or may be in need of medical attention. The number of student is increasing day by day and it is difficult to maintain all of their health information and report by the doctor by using manually. Web-based or online system is rapidly spinning in the real life as the convenience and cost savings of the web are becoming apparent. To solve this issue, this study will focus on an online medical test registration system that can retrieve staffs and students medical test information required from University Health Centre (UHC). Based on the proposed system, doctors can manage the test service fasters and eventually will improve the service in the (UHC) in general

Linking the evidence: intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments

Objectives To review how health technology assessments (HTA) of medical tests incorporate intermediate outcomes in conclusions about the effectiveness of tests on improving health outcomes. Methods Systematic review of English-language test assessments in the HTA database from January 2005 to February 2010, supplemented by a search of the websites of International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members. Results 149 HTAs from eight countries were assessed. Half evaluated tests for screening or diagnosis, a third for disease classification (including staging, prognosis, monitoring), and a fifth for multiple purposes. In 71 HTAs (48%) only diagnostic accuracy was reported, while in 17 (11%) evidence of health outcomes was reported in addition to accuracy. Intermediate outcomes, mainly the impact of test results on patient management, were considered in 61 HTAs (41%). Of these, 47 identified randomized trials or observational studies reporting intermediate outcomes. The validity of these intermediate outcomes as a surrogate for health outcomes was not consistently discussed; nor was the quality appraisal of this evidence. Clear conclusions about whether the test was effective were included in about 60% of HTAs. Conclusions Intermediate outcomes are frequently assessed in medical test HTAs, but interpretation of this evidence is inconsistently reported. We recommend that reviewers explain the rationale for using intermediate outcomes, identify the assumptions required to link intermediate outcomes and patient benefits and harms, and assess the quality of included studies

Salient selves in uncertain futures

We examined possible selves during three distinct periods of uncertainty. Cancer survivors (Study 1a) and survivors’ romantic partners (Study 1b) rated the salience of possible selves in which the cancer did (negative possible self; NPS) and did not (positive possible self; PPS) return. Study 2 mapped PPS and NPS salience throughout the four-month wait for bar exam results. Study 3 experimentally primed possible selves among participants awaiting medical test results. PPS salience correlated positively, and NPS negatively, with indicators of health and well-being, and inducing focus on one’s NPS led to greater negative emotion and worry compared to a PPS induction, but not less positive emotion. These results illustrate the well-being implications of possible selves during periods of uncertainty

Chapter 6: Assessing Applicability of Medical Test Studies in Systematic Reviews

Use of medical tests should be guided by research evidence about the accuracy and utility of those tests in clinical care settings. Systematic reviews of the literature about medical tests must address applicability to real-world decision-making. Challenges for reviews include: (1) lack of clarity in key questions about the intended applicability of the review, (2) numerous studies in many populations and settings, (3) publications that provide too little information to assess applicability, (4) secular trends in prevalence and the spectrum of the condition for which the test is done, and (5) changes in the technology of the test itself. We describe principles for crafting reviews that meet these challenges and capture the key elements from the literature necessary to understand applicability

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews

Evaluation of medical tests presents challenges distinct from those involved in the evaluation of therapies; in particular, the very great importance of context and the dearth of comprehensive RCTs aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of different tests and test strategies. Available guidance provides some suggestions: 1) Use of the PICOTS typology for clarifying the context relevant to the review, and 2) use of an organizing framework for classifying the types of medical test evaluation studies and their relationship to potential key questions. However, there is a diversity of recommendations for reviewers of medical tests and a proliferation of concepts, terms, and methods. As a contribution to the field, this Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews seeks to provide practical guidance for achieving the goals of clarity, consistency, tractability, and usefulness