Project description
Understanding the confusion in medical test evaluation
The evaluation of medical tests is currently in a state of confusion. Traditionally, diagnostic accuracy, gauged by sensitivity and specificity, has been the main measure. Sensitivity and specificity are often viewed as constants, but this assumption is contested. Some experts argue that these metrics vary significantly and should be abandoned in favour of patient outcomes, while others disagree. This confusion hampers medical practice. With the support of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions programme, the HistPhilMedTest project aims to clarify this issue using historical and philosophical tools. By examining the evolution of test evaluation throughout the 20th century, the project highlights the shifting balance between assumptions of patient homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Objective
This project uses integrated history and philosophy for medicine to inform medical practice today. The evaluation of medical tests is today in a state of confusion. Traditionally, the main index used to evaluate diagnostic tests is diagnostic accuracy. Typically, this is done by evaluating the sensitivity (the proportion of patients with a disease that test positive) and the specificity (the proportion of patients without a disease who test negative) of a test. Sensitivity and specificity are commonly assumed to be constants, or to vary only in a limited rage of circumstances. In contrast to this, others claim that sensitivity and specificity are highly variable, so much so that the ‘diagnostic accuracy paradigm’ should be abandoned. Instead of focusing on diagnostic accuracy, some recommend that test evaluation should focus on patient outcomes, whilst others strongly disagree. This confusion is detrimental to medical practice, as it leaves medicine in a state of not knowing how to tell if a medical test is a good one. This project seeks to understand and address this confusion using historical and philosophical tools. Philosophical analysis reveals that the differing attitudes to test evaluation have at their root differing philosophical assumptions about how homogeneous or heterogeneous patients with the same disease are. The project provides and intellectual and social history that traces the development of test evaluation over the twentieth century. It follows how successive generations of researchers have balanced assumptions of homogeneity and heterogeneity and modified them for use in their particular setting. The central claim of this project is that understanding medical history is key to balancing assumptions of homogeneity and heterogeneity skillfully.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
HORIZON.1.2 - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-PF-EF - HORIZON TMA MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships - European Fellowships
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) HORIZON-MSCA-2023-PF-01
See all projects funded under this callCoordinator
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
40225 Dusseldorf
Germany
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.