Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The text discusses the challenges of defining normal versus abnormal laboratory values and the role of clinicians in balancing the risks of false-positive and false-negative errors.
dissemination of Gaussian-based "signifi- cance" tests.If or when the percentile method of expressing interindividual differences has been widely adopted, there will still remain two much more difficult problems: (a) the collection, from healthy and diseased subjects, of data that are reliable and are applicable to the particular patient under investigation; and (b) the question of where to make the cut-off points between "normal" and "abnormal"what risks of error (false-positives and false- negatives) are acceptable.For the balancing of these risks-often a different balance with respect to different disorders, different consequences of error, and even different patients -we must look to clinicians, not to biochemists or other laboratory workers, or to statisticians as such.It would be interesting if the SI units compensated somewhat for their adverse effects by promoting the use of a sensible method of expressing intermeasurement variation and by allowing us to focus attention on how to collect data and apply them to individual patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
C Layton (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: