Interpretation of evidence in data by untrained medical students: a scenario-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine which approach to assessment of evidence in data - statistical tests or likelihood ratios - comes closest to the interpretation of evidence by untrained medical students.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Empirical study of medical students (N = 842), untrained in statistical inference or in the interpretation of diagnostic tests. They were asked to interpret a hypothetical diagnostic test, presented in four versions that differed in the distributions of test scores in diseased and non-diseased populations. Each student received only one version. The intuitive application of the statistical test approach would lead to rejecting the null hypothesis of no disease in version A, and to accepting the null in version B. Application of the likelihood ratio approach led to opposite conclusions - against the disease in A, and in favour of disease in B. Version C tested the importance of the p-value (A: 0.04 versus C: 0.08) and version D the importance of the likelihood ratio (C: 1/4 versus D: 1/8).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In version A, 7.5% concluded that the result was in favour of disease (compatible with p value), 43.6% ruled against the disease (compatible with likelihood ratio), and 48.9% were undecided. In version B, 69.0% were in favour of disease (compatible with likelihood ratio), 4.5% against (compatible with p value), and 26.5% undecided. Increasing the p value from 0.04 to 0.08 did not change the results. The change in the likelihood ratio from 1/4 to 1/8 increased the proportion of non-committed responses.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Most untrained medical students appear to interpret evidence from data in a manner that is compatible with the use of likelihood ratios.</p

What if cancer survival in Britain were the same as in Europe: how many deaths are avoidable?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of deaths among cancer patients diagnosed in Great Britain that would be avoidable within 5 years of diagnosis if the mean (or highest) survival in Europe for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989, 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 were achieved. DESIGN: Five-year relative survival for cancers in Great Britain compared with that from other countries in the EUROCARE-2, -3 and -4 studies. Calculation of excess deaths (those more than expected from mortality in the general population) that would be avoidable among cancer patients in Britain if relative survival were the same as in Europe. SETTING: Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and 13 other European countries. SUBJECTS: 2.8 million adults diagnosed in Britain with 1 of 39 cancers during 1985-1989 (followed up to 1994), 1990-1994 (followed up to 1999) and 1995-1999 (followed up to 2003). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Annual number of avoidable deaths within 5 years of diagnosis. Percentage of the excess (cancer-related) deaths among cancer patients that would be avoidable. RESULTS: Compared with the mean European 5-year relative survival, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989 were for cancers of the breast (about 18% of the excess mortality from this cancer, 7541 deaths), prostate (14%, 4285), colon (9%, 4090), stomach (8%, 3483) and lung (2%, 3548). For 1990-1994, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (20%, 7335), breast (15%, 6165), colon (9%, 4376), stomach (9%, 3672), lung (2%, 3735) and kidney (22%, 2644). For 1995-1999, most of the avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (17%, 5758), breast (15%, 5475), lung (3%, 4923), colon (10%, 4295), stomach (9%, 3137) and kidney (21%, 2686).Overall, some 6600-7500 premature deaths would have been avoided each year among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 if the mean survival in Europe had been achieved. This represents 6-7% of cancer-related mortality. Compared with the highest European survival, avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients fell from about 12 800 deaths a year (12.2% of cancer-related mortality) to about 11 400 deaths a year (10.6%) over the same period.A large component of the avoidable mortality is due to prostate cancer: excluding this cancer from comparison with the European mean survival reduces the annual number of avoidable deaths by 1000-1500, and the percentage of excess mortality by up to 1%. Compared with the highest survival, the annual number of avoidable deaths would be 1500-2000 fewer, and 1-2% lower as a percentage of excess mortality, but the overall trend in avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients would be similar, falling from 11.4% (1985-1989) to 10.3% (1990-1994) and 9.7% for those diagnosed during 1995-1999.For several cancers, survival in Britain was slightly higher than the mean survival in Europe; this represented some 110-180 premature deaths avoided each year during the period 1985-2003. CONCLUSIONS: Avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 has represented 6-7% of cancer-related mortality compared with the mean survival in Europe. Compared with the highest levels of survival in Europe, the reduction from 12.2% to 10.6% of cancer-related mortality reflects small but steady progress over the period 1985-2003

Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study

Medical imaging has enormous potential for early disease prediction, but is impeded by the difficulty and expense of acquiring data sets before symptom onset. UK Biobank aims to address this problem directly by acquiring high-quality, consistently acquired imaging data from 100,000 predominantly healthy participants, with health outcomes being tracked over the coming decades. The brain imaging includes structural, diffusion and functional modalities. Along with body and cardiac imaging, genetics, lifestyle measures, biological phenotyping and health records, this imaging is expected to enable discovery of imaging markers of a broad range of diseases at their earliest stages, as well as provide unique insight into disease mechanisms. We describe UK Biobank brain imaging and present results derived from the first 5,000 participants' data release. Although this covers just 5% of the ultimate cohort, it has already yielded a rich range of associations between brain imaging and other measures collected by UK Biobank

Diagnosis and management of Cornelia de Lange syndrome:first international consensus statement

Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is an archetypical genetic syndrome that is characterized by intellectual disability, well-defined facial features, upper limb anomalies and atypical growth, among numerous other signs and symptoms. It is caused by variants in any one of seven genes, all of which have a structural or regulatory function in the cohesin complex. Although recent advances in next-generation sequencing have improved molecular diagnostics, marked heterogeneity exists in clinical and molecular diagnostic approaches and care practices worldwide. Here, we outline a series of recommendations that document the consensus of a group of international experts on clinical diagnostic criteria, both for classic CdLS and non-classic CdLS phenotypes, molecular investigations, long-term management and care planning