FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 305:917-923 October 15, 1981 Number 16 Next

	Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Abstract

Pathologists typically analyze biopsy specimens and report their opinions in a qualitative fashion. Clinical information, often fragmentary in character, is implicitly linked with the histologic findings, and interpretations are couched in ambiguous language: "consistent with," "highly suggestive of," "may represent," or "cannot exclude." Only pathognomonic or normal findings are reported in an unequivocal fashion. In this paper we compare the analysis of biopsy material by a conventional method and by a numerical, probabilistic technique. We suggest that applying a probabilistic technique can considerably improve the precision of tissue diagnosis and can greatly facilitate the communication of pathologists with clinicians and with each other. Probabilistic analysis is also likely to be of substantial value in improving the interpretation and reporting of x-ray and nuclear-medicine studies.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Niv, Y (2003). Pathologists and gastroenterologists. J. Clin. Pathol. 56: 241-242 [Full Text]  
• Knottnerus, J A., van Weel, C., Muris, J. W M (2002). Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ 324: 477-480 [Full Text]  
• Black, W. C., Dwyer, A. J. (1990). Local versus Global Measures of Accuracy: An Important Distinction for Diagnostic Imaging. Med Decis Making 10: 266-273 [Abstract]  
• Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J., Diehr, P. H., Bushyhead, J. B., Wood, R. W. (1982). Two Studies of Good Clinical Judgment. Med Decis Making 2: 275-283