更新顺势疗法算法:处理确认偏差。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Homeopathy Pub Date : 2025-08-27 DOI:10.1055/a-2606-4041
Lex Rutten, Rainer Schäferkordt, José E Eizayaga
{"title":"更新顺势疗法算法:处理确认偏差。","authors":"Lex Rutten, Rainer Schäferkordt, José E Eizayaga","doi":"10.1055/a-2606-4041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Homeopathy has always used algorithms, such as giving more weight to peculiar symptoms and repertorisation of symptoms for differential diagnosis of medicines. However, repertory entries are flawed and homeopathic data are liable to heuristic bias. Modernising the homeopathic repertory with statistical tools, such as Bayes' theorem, should be accompanied by handling (confirmation) bias.After systematic collection of 731 'Best Chronic Homeopathic Cases' (BCHC), we analysed patterns in the frequency distribution of likelihood ratios (LRs). We did the same with an existing Bayesian repertory based on historical materia medica data of more uncertain quality. The frequency distributions are assessed with theoretical considerations, mathematical tools such as (exponential) transformations and differentiation, and expert knowledge.The frequency distributions of LRs both showed the same two patterns: the middle part of the frequency distribution showed a loglinear progression, but at both ends there was an increasing slope of the curve. The confirmation bias in the middle part of the LRs can be corrected mathematically with exponentiation (power calculations). Clinical expertise and differentiation of the curve indicate LR = 7 as an eligible maximum for the vast majority of symptoms. There was no clear difference between the BCHC and the historical materia medica data in this respect.It is possible to correct partly for confirmation bias in a repertorisation algorithm by a combination of theoretical consideration, expert knowledge and mathematics. We found a striking similarity between the BCHC and historical data regarding confirmation bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":13227,"journal":{"name":"Homeopathy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Updating the Homeopathic Algorithms: Handling Confirmation Bias.\",\"authors\":\"Lex Rutten, Rainer Schäferkordt, José E Eizayaga\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2606-4041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Homeopathy has always used algorithms, such as giving more weight to peculiar symptoms and repertorisation of symptoms for differential diagnosis of medicines. However, repertory entries are flawed and homeopathic data are liable to heuristic bias. Modernising the homeopathic repertory with statistical tools, such as Bayes' theorem, should be accompanied by handling (confirmation) bias.After systematic collection of 731 'Best Chronic Homeopathic Cases' (BCHC), we analysed patterns in the frequency distribution of likelihood ratios (LRs). We did the same with an existing Bayesian repertory based on historical materia medica data of more uncertain quality. The frequency distributions are assessed with theoretical considerations, mathematical tools such as (exponential) transformations and differentiation, and expert knowledge.The frequency distributions of LRs both showed the same two patterns: the middle part of the frequency distribution showed a loglinear progression, but at both ends there was an increasing slope of the curve. The confirmation bias in the middle part of the LRs can be corrected mathematically with exponentiation (power calculations). Clinical expertise and differentiation of the curve indicate LR = 7 as an eligible maximum for the vast majority of symptoms. There was no clear difference between the BCHC and the historical materia medica data in this respect.It is possible to correct partly for confirmation bias in a repertorisation algorithm by a combination of theoretical consideration, expert knowledge and mathematics. We found a striking similarity between the BCHC and historical data regarding confirmation bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Homeopathy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Homeopathy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2606-4041\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Homeopathy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2606-4041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

顺势疗法一直使用算法,例如在药物鉴别诊断中更重视特殊症状和症状累加。然而,保留条目是有缺陷的,顺势疗法的数据容易受到启发式偏见的影响。用统计工具(如贝叶斯定理)使顺势疗法的剧目现代化,应该伴随着处理(确认)偏差。在系统收集了731例“最佳慢性顺势疗法病例”(BCHC)后,我们分析了似然比(LRs)的频率分布模式。我们对现有的贝叶斯知识库做了同样的工作,该知识库基于质量不确定的历史药材数据。频率分布评估与理论考虑,数学工具,如(指数)变换和微分,和专家知识。LRs的频率分布均表现出相同的两种模式:频率分布的中间部分呈对数级数增长,但两端曲线的斜率都在增加。LRs中间部分的确认偏差可以用幂运算(功率计算)在数学上进行修正。临床专业知识和曲线的分化表明,对于绝大多数症状,LR = 7是符合条件的最大值。BCHC与历史药材数据在这方面无明显差异。通过理论考虑、专家知识和数学的结合,可以部分地纠正累加算法中的确认偏差。我们发现在确认偏差方面,BCHC和历史数据之间存在惊人的相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Updating the Homeopathic Algorithms: Handling Confirmation Bias.

Homeopathy has always used algorithms, such as giving more weight to peculiar symptoms and repertorisation of symptoms for differential diagnosis of medicines. However, repertory entries are flawed and homeopathic data are liable to heuristic bias. Modernising the homeopathic repertory with statistical tools, such as Bayes' theorem, should be accompanied by handling (confirmation) bias.After systematic collection of 731 'Best Chronic Homeopathic Cases' (BCHC), we analysed patterns in the frequency distribution of likelihood ratios (LRs). We did the same with an existing Bayesian repertory based on historical materia medica data of more uncertain quality. The frequency distributions are assessed with theoretical considerations, mathematical tools such as (exponential) transformations and differentiation, and expert knowledge.The frequency distributions of LRs both showed the same two patterns: the middle part of the frequency distribution showed a loglinear progression, but at both ends there was an increasing slope of the curve. The confirmation bias in the middle part of the LRs can be corrected mathematically with exponentiation (power calculations). Clinical expertise and differentiation of the curve indicate LR = 7 as an eligible maximum for the vast majority of symptoms. There was no clear difference between the BCHC and the historical materia medica data in this respect.It is possible to correct partly for confirmation bias in a repertorisation algorithm by a combination of theoretical consideration, expert knowledge and mathematics. We found a striking similarity between the BCHC and historical data regarding confirmation bias.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Homeopathy
Homeopathy 医学-全科医学与补充医学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
70.60%
发文量
34
审稿时长
20.1 weeks
期刊介绍: Homeopathy is an international peer-reviewed journal aimed at improving the fundamental understanding and clinical practice of homeopathy by publishing relevant high-quality original research articles, reviews, and case reports. It also promotes commentary and debate on matters of topical interest in homeopathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信