Randomized controlled trials versus rough set analysis: two competing approaches for evaluating clinical data

The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The main purpose of the paper is to present a general idea of alternative method of evaluating empirical evidence. The method builds on data analysis that makes use of rough set theory. The first attempts to apply the method show that it is an interesting alternative to randomized controlled trials.     

Patients’ and Parents’ Perceptions of Appearance in Scoliosis Treated with a Brace: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

The perspective of trunk deformity is a matter of special concern for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. No research group has ever reported interviewing patients and their parents regarding differences in perception of body appearance in the course of Cheneau brace treatment. We aimed to investigate the level of agreement in the field of concerns and perceptions of spinal appearance in relation to brace- and scoliosis-related data between parents and female patients with AIS, treated with a Cheneau brace, by means of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire-pl (SAQ-pl). In this cross-sectional study forty-one pairs of parents and female patients with AIS were asked to separately complete the Polish versions of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire-pl patient form (SAQ-pl patient form) and the SAQ-pl parent form. Age of patients was 13.60 years SD 1.60 (range 10–17). Patients scored 2.70 (SD 0.60) and parents scored 2.70 SD 0.60 in the total score of the SAQ-pl. The study groups do not differ significantly in regards to the SAQ-pl results. The percentage of consistent answers on SAQ-pl items ranges from 34.10 % (item 20) to 78 % (item 8). Height, age and brace-wearing time per day, were significantly related to the differences in the patient-parent General perception of body shape (r _s  = ?0.51, r _s  = ?0.34, r _s  = 0.36, respectively). Parents and female patients with AIS have similar concerns and perceptions of spinal appearance. The discrepancies in General perception of spinal appearance between parents and AIS females decrease with age of patient. Parental emotional support may contribute to minimizing the risk factors of psychological impairment, especially in late adolescents with AIS.     

SCIENCE,RELIGION, AND THE MEANING OF LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE: “AMALGAM” NARRATIVES OF POLISH NATURAL SCIENTISTS

This article deals with phenomena occurring at the interface of the existential, the religious, and scientific inquiry. On the basis of in‐depth interviews with Polish physicists and biologists, I examine the role that science and religion play in their narrative of the meaning of the Universe and human life. I show that the narratives about meaning have a system‐related (“amalgam") character that is associated with responses to adjacent metaphysical questions, including those based on scientific knowledge. I reconstruct the typical amalgam questions of Polish scientists and come to a conclusion about the stability of religious and nonreligious amalgams in this group. Critically referring to the thesis concerning the secularizing impact of science, I conclude that science by itself does not have a destructive effect on Polish scientists’ confidence that life and the Universe are meaningful, but is rather an exacerbating factor of the existing worldview system.     

Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable

Cognitive training and brain stimulation studies have suggested that human cognition, primarily working memory and attention control processes, can be enhanced. Some authors claim that gains (i.e., post-test minus pretest scores) from such interventions are unevenly distributed among people. The magnification account (expressed by the evangelical “who has will more be given”) predicts that the largest gains will be shown by the most cognitively efficient people, who will also be most effective in exploiting interventions. In contrast, the compensation account (“who has will less be given”) predicts that such people already perform at ceiling, so interventions will yield the largest gains in the least cognitively efficient people. Evidence for this latter account comes from reported negative correlations between the pretest and the training/stimulation gain. In this paper, with the use of mathematical derivations and simulation methods, we show that such correlations are pure statistical artifacts caused by the widely known methodological error called “regression to the mean”. Unfortunately, more advanced methods, such as alternative measures, linear models, and control groups do not guarantee correct assessment of the compensation effect either. The only correct method is to use direct modeling of correlations between latent true measures and gain. As to date no training/stimulation study has correctly used this method to provide evidence in favor of the compensation account, we must conclude that most (if not all) of the evidence should be considered inconclusive.