On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:19:39AM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:I did like it, ha ! But oh well, it got to go.
> I understand what Karsten is getting at, and encourage ongoing possible
> "eurekas" on things that may be clinically informative. Unfortunately,
> the bandwidth idea IMO needs to be retired, I am sorry to have to say :-(
That's much better wording for what I had in mind :-)
> The concept may be that a result that is only slightly outside of a test
> range that is normally tight, it is more confidently pathological than a
> result that deviates, with higher amplitude, from a range that is wider.
> However, I have seen many results of the anticoagulation test INR which
> has a reference range of 0.9-1.0 or 0.9-1.1 come back at 1.2 or even 1.3
> at which I sometimes raise an eyebrow as to the latter but never did it
> end up connecting to any pathology and that is a result deviating by 3x
> (300%) of the bandwidth.
Not really, in strict mathematical terms because of ...
> Also the concept being pursued is something like a standard deviation
> but the problem is one cannot judge dispersion from a knowledge of only
> the limits
For me ideas usually come with use. They ain't brilliant
> reference range, only an upper limit with lower limit zero. So in summary
> I would say: keep thinking, more (and sometimes brilliant) ideas will
> come !
particularly often, however :-/ :-)
Way to go !
> PS after enough people had been using GNUmed, we could always
> contemplate a research study that could be based on database queries of
> whether test abnormality as determined relative to bandwidth was a
> predictor of reliability or severity of pathology.
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346