Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19433013›Full record

ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2009

Artificial adaptive systems and fuzzy measures for translation of clinical trial results to the bedside.

Cathy M Helgason

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cathy M HelgasonCathy M. Helgason, MD University of Illinois at Chicago, Neurology and Rehabilitation, MC 796, 912 South Wood Street, Room 855N, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. helgason@uic.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical science relies uniquely on statistical evidence from large clinical trials or laboratory experiments to deal with uncertainties regarding clinical decisions. The statistical evidence is stated in probabilities. Probability theory is based on the logical rules set forth by Aristotle: the law of noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity. Thus, medical science assumes that variables such as disease and treatment relate or interact only in certain ways and the statistical evidence defines the presence of these relations. Experiments seek to find these certain predefined relations among variables, relations that then predict in terms of probabilities their behavior over time. Living systems are nonlinear and complex, which means that the relations among variables not only change over time, but their behavior over time changes in response to the change in one another in unpredictable ways. A patient is a living system and as such is a dynamic system of the type described. Because patients have different genetic and contextual makeup, there is no reason to assume they share a common dynamic. One goal of medical science should be to discover the behavioral dynamic of variables of interest in a given patient to individualize treatment appropriate to that system. Ideally this would be in real time so that diagnostic and treatment decisions adapt to dynamic change. Artificial adaptive systems on the one hand and fuzzy theory on the other are two scientific approaches toward this end.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.