China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Enlightenment
Published in Scott M. Jackson, Skin Disease and the History of Dermatology, 2023
While Linnaeus was defining and classifying living things, Enlightenment physicians attempted to define and classify diseases, a discipline termed nosology. Recall that Thomas Sydenham, in the seventeenth century, had originally called for the classification of diseases based on his novel idea of “species” of disease. Nosology developed from the desire to bring order to a large body of disorganized facts, to encourage more satisfactory explanations of therapeutics in the iatrochemical and iatromechanical framework, and to make a stand against rising radical skepticism.26 Several important physicians in the eighteenth century attempted to answer Sydenham's call. Interestingly, many of these physicians, like Linnaeus, were also botanists, and the approach taken to classify disease followed the approach to classify plants. Plants at this time were classified based on directly observable external structures, and diseases were classified by directly observable signs and symptoms.
Pathology and Research
Published in Jeremy R. Jass, Understanding Pathology, 2020
How do the specific attributes of the discipline of anatomical pathology lend themselves to the advance of medical research? The most general contribution has been to the systematic classification of disease known as nosology. This process begins with the arrangement of the many thousands of known diseases into logical groupings, rather like the phylogenetic classification of species of animals and plants. Diseases may be grouped according to the usual age, sex or race of affected subjects, by the part of the body that is most severely affected, or by the type of treatment that would be employed. Although such classifications might have some use, they all fail to place diseases within distinct, non-overlapping boundaries. To achieve a more meaningful approach to nosology, it is necessary to look at the fundamental nature of a disease, specifically the mechanisms underlying its causation (aetiology) and evolution (pathogenesis).
The Problems of Nosology in Alcoholism Treatment and Research
Published in Edith S. Lisansky Gomberg, Current Issues in Alcohol/Drug Studies, 2019
Thomas P. Beresford, Frederic C. Blow, Kirk J. Brower, Jack G. Modell, Cindy Kracht
To begin, it is important to review the purpose of any nosology applied to a clinical problem. In most cases, this purpose is twofold. First, the nosology should, in naming a type or sub-type of a general clinical syndrome, describe or define a natural history associated with that type or nosology alone. By so doing, the nosological description, based on empirical data, offers a baseline of the natural course of an illness or a condition against which efforts to treat may be measured. It follows that any useful nosology should be based on empirical observation of an illness course. Such observations are best done using prospectively applied measures of a clinical population studied over the usual course of the illness. This is true whether one is studying diabetes, cancer, or alcoholism. Prospective studies in the latter condition are especially difficult owing to the extreme length of the natural course of the illness, varying from a few years to as many as twenty or more. This approach to nosology assumes a “disease model,” one facet of which is the natural decline as the disease progresses.
Classification of Seasonal Hyperacute Panuveitis (SHAPU)
Published in Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, 2022
Ranju Kharel Sitaula, Anadi Khatri, Pratap Karki, Sagun Narayan Joshi, Haramaya Gurung, Eliya Shrestha, Indraman Maharjan, Ananda K Sharma, Madan Prasad Upadhyay
Literature illustrates that the nosology was started for the classification of diseases before the fifteenth century but professional nosology involving the coding of diseases as per diagnosis had only started expanding dramatically in the last half of the twentieth century.6 Now in the twenty-first century, electronic records and the growing promise of automated nosology have not just made the disease classification easier but also assisted in proper documentation of the disease – aiding clinicians, researchers, and scientists to have an in-depth knowledge about its outbreaks, incidence, and prevalence. Thus, we aim to contribute in the ophthalmic nosology by purposing a classification criteria for SHAPU. The classification is suggested on the background of prolonged experience of this entity by investigators (SRG) who have dedicated years of research on this topic – including the first clinician and ophthalmologist who coined the term SHAPU, more than 46 years ago and is also considered the father of SHAPU (Professor Madan Prasad Upadhyay).5 We hope this classification will help in effective planning and evaluation of this ocular emergency condition and deliver the appropriate and reliable information for timely management and prevention of complications.
Commentary: statistical analysis of 2 × 2 tables in biomarker studies 1) the four ‘indices of test validity’
Published in Biomarkers, 2022
The test statistics produced for assessing tests performance are referred to by some as diagnostic accuracy statistics or performance indices (Rautaharju et al. 1976). Feinstein (2002) referred to them as nosologic indices. Nosology is the classification, arrangement, or catalogue of diseases. An endpoint (or an index or attribute) is called a condition (also called an ‘event’ or ‘target’ event). Endpoints can be nominal/ordinal/binary, or quantitative/interval-scaled. In the case of a binary endpoint, it is, often, called either positive or negative. Endpoints in some tests can be polychotomous (i.e. multilevel and have more than two categories) but these will not be discussed here (but see Arias and Sangrador 2017). In practice, no test is likely to be 100% accurate. The size of the performance indices is, therefore, important and their evaluation requires careful interpretation.
Conceptual and historical evolution of psychiatric nosology
Published in International Review of Psychiatry, 2021
Many authors have recognized how psychiatric nosology involves a number of conceptual dichotomies and polarities; some relate to the underlying philosophical assumptions and orientation, others to the choice of methodology, the needs which the classifications are intended to serve, and distinctions within classifications. Table 1 describes some of the pertinent polarities that have been commented upon in existing literature (Berrios, 1999; Pichot, 1994; Stengel, 1959), and are of relevance to the discussion in the present article. This is by no means an exhaustive list and many other conceptual polarities relevant to nosology also exist (such as natural vs artificial, hierarchical vs one-level, and exhaustive vs partial). It is also important to note that these conceptual polarities are often contrasts which are emphasized differently by different classifications and are not fundamental ontological distinctions. These polarities are also inter-dependent and relate to each other in complex ways.