Of Mushrooms and Method: History and the Family in Hobbes’s Science of Politics

Hobbes’s account of the commonwealth is standardly interpreted to be primarily a theory of contract, whereby the archetypal manner of forming a political community is via an act of mutual agreement between suspicious individuals of equal power. By examining Hobbes’s theories of the pre-political family, and what he says about the role of real history in the development of political societies, I conclude that this standard interpretation is untenable. Rather, Hobbes’s conception of commonwealth ‘by institution’ is a hypothetical model used to illustrate the mechanics of sovereignty, and to reconcile men to the conditions of subjection to absolute political power. In practice, all sovereignty is originally by ‘acquisition’. Realizing this casts serious doubt on the possibility that Hobbes is a fundamentally democratic thinker. In turn, we are invited to reconsider the history of political thought after Hobbes, in particular by seeing his theory of the family and of history as a genealogical ancestor of Scottish Enlightenment political theory.This work was supported by The Arts and Humanities Research Council block grant, and the University of Cambridge Faculty of History Prince Consort & Thirlwall Trust.This is the accepted manuscript version. The final version is available from http://ept.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/21/1474885114531237.abstract

Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS): protocol for a prospective longitudinal test accuracy study to validate new risk scores in women with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer.

Introduction Ovarian cancer (OC) is associated with non-specific symptoms such as bloating, making accurate diagnosis challenging: only 1 in 3 women with OC presents through primary care referral. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommends sequential testing with CA125 and routine ultrasound in primary care. However, these diagnostic tests have limited sensitivity or specificity. Improving accurate triage in women with vague symptoms is likely to improve mortality by streamlining referral and care pathways. The Refining Ovarian Cancer Test Accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS; HTA 13/13/01) project will derive and validate new tests/risk prediction models that estimate the probability of having OC in women with symptoms. This protocol refers to the prospective study only (phase III). Methods and analysis ROCkeTS comprises four parallel phases. The full ROCkeTS protocol can be found at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ROCKETS. Phase III is a prospective test accuracy study. The study will recruit 2450 patients from 15 UK sites. Recruited patients complete symptom and anxiety questionnaires, donate a serum sample and undergo ultrasound scored as per International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) criteria. Recruitment is at rapid access clinics, emergency departments and elective clinics. Models to be evaluated include those based on ultrasound derived by the IOTA group and novel models derived from analysis of existing data sets. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, c-statistic (area under receiver operating curve), positive predictive value and negative predictive value of diagnostic tests are evaluated and a calibration plot for models will be presented. ROCkeTS has received ethical approval from the NHS West Midlands REC (14/WM/1241) and is registered on the controlled trials website (ISRCTN17160843) and the National Institute of Health Research Cancer and Reproductive Health portfolios

Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study

Background: Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort. Methods: In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16–90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843). Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of –13·9% [–20·2 to –7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of –3·6% [–9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of –2·1% [–4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of –4·3% [–11·0 to –2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of –1·6% [–9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of –2·2% [–5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of –2·1% [–6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of –2·1%, 95% CI –8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001). Interpretation: In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients. Funding: UK National Institute of Heath Research

Tips on How to Read Evidence-Based Practice Journal Articles (CEU)

You want to know if there is evidence to support a new intervention; however when it comes to understanding statistical terms you may become increasingly apprehensive. This brief presentation will focus on how to critically appraise research including determining clinical importance. This presentation will break down commonly used statistical terms in order for you to begin developing into a critical consumer of research evidence