Suppose x is an unknown vector in Ropfm (a digital image or signal); we plan to measure n general linear functionals of x and then reconstruct. If x is known to be compressible by transform coding with a known transform, and we reconstruct via the nonlinear procedure defined here, the number of measurements n can be dramatically smaller than the size m. Thus, certain natural classes of images with m pixels need only n=O(m1/4log5/2(m)) nonadaptive nonpixel samples for faithful recovery, as opposed to the usual m pixel samples. More specifically, suppose x has a sparse representation in some orthonormal basis (e.g., wavelet, Fourier) or tight frame (e.g., curvelet, Gabor)-so the coefficients belong to an lscrp ball for 0<ples1. The N most important coefficients in that expansion allow reconstruction with lscr2 error O(N1/2-1p/). It is possible to design n=O(Nlog(m)) nonadaptive measurements allowing reconstruction with accuracy comparable to that attainable with direct knowledge of the N most important coefficients. Moreover, a good approximation to those N important coefficients is extracted from the n measurements by solving a linear program-Basis Pursuit in signal processing. The nonadaptive measurements have the character of "random" linear combinations of basis/frame elements. Our results use the notions of optimal recovery, of n-widths, and information-based complexity. We estimate the Gel'fand n-widths of lscrp balls in high-dimensional Euclidean space in the case 0<ples1, and give a criterion identifying near- optimal subspaces for Gel'fand n-widths. We show that "most" subspaces are near-optimal, and show that convex optimization (Basis Pursuit) is a near-optimal way to extract information derived from these near-optimal subspaces

Compressed sensing

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary?

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.c869.full.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Preparing the books to read every day is enjoyable for many people. However, there are still many people who also don't like reading. This is a problem. But, when you can support others to start reading, it will be better. One of the books that can be recommended for new readers is experience and education. This book is not kind of difficult book to read. It can be read and understand by the new readers.

Experience and Education.

ContextOverweight and obesity are increasing dramatically in the United States
and most likely contribute substantially to the burden of chronic health conditions.ObjectiveTo describe the relationship between weight status and prevalence of
health conditions by severity of overweight and obesity in the US population.Design and SettingNationally representative cross-sectional survey using data from the
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), which
was conducted in 2 phases from 1988 to 1994.ParticipantsA total of 16,884 adults, 25 years and older, classified as overweight
and obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m2) based on National
Institutes of Health recommended guidelines.Main Outcome MeasuresPrevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease, coronary
heart disease, high blood cholesterol level, high blood pressure, or osteoarthritis.ResultsSixty-three percent of men and 55% of women had a body mass index of
25 kg/m2 or greater. A graded increase in the prevalence ratio
(PR) was observed with increasing severity of overweight and obesity for all
of the health outcomes except for coronary heart disease in men and high blood
cholesterol level in both men and women. With normal-weight individuals as
the reference, for individuals with BMIs of at least 40 kg/m2 and
who were younger than 55 years, PRs were highest for type 2 diabetes for men
(PR, 18.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-46.8) and women (PR, 12.9; 95%
CI, 5.7-28.1) and gallbladder disease for men (PR, 21.1; 95% CI, 4.1-84.2)
and women (PR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.9-8.9). Prevalence ratios generally were greater
in younger than in older adults. The prevalence of having 2 or more health
conditions increased with weight status category across all racial and ethnic
subgroups.ConclusionsBased on these results, more than half of all US adults are considered
overweight or obese. The prevalence of obesity-related comorbidities emphasizes
the need for concerted efforts to prevent and treat obesity rather than just
its associated comorbidities.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/192030/JOC81719.pdf

The Disease Burden Associated with Overweight and Obesity

The physician's estimate of the probability that a patient has a particular disease is a principal factor in the determination of whether to withhold treatment, obtain more data by testing, or treat without subjecting the patient to the risks of further diagnostic tests. Using the concepts of decision analysis, we have derived expressions for two threshold probabilities involved in this choice: a "testing" threshold and a "test-treatment" threshold. Values can be assigned to these thresholds from data on the reliability and potential risks of the diagnostic test and the benefits and risks of a specific treatment. Treatment should be withheld if the probability of disease is smaller than the testing threshold, and treatment should be given without further testing if the probability of disease is greater than the test-treatment threshold. The test should be performed (with treatment depending on the test outcome) only if the probability of disease is between the two thresholds. The method exposes important principles of decision making and helps the clinician develop a rational, quantitative approach to the use of diagnostic tests.

The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Conflicts of interest between physicians' commitment to patient care and the desire of pharmaceutical companies and their representatives to sell their products pose challenges to the principles of medical professionalism. These conflicts occur when physicians have motives or are in situations for which reasonable observers could conclude that the moral requirements of the physician's roles are or will be compromised. Although physician groups, the manufacturers, and the federal government have instituted self-regulation of marketing, research in the psychology and social science of gift receipt and giving indicates that current controls will not satisfactorily protect the interests of patients. More stringent regulation is necessary, including the elimination or modification of common practices related to small gifts, pharmaceutical samples, continuing medical education, funds for physician travel, speakers bureaus, ghostwriting, and consulting and research contracts. We propose a policy under which academic medical centers would take the lead in eliminating the conflicts of interest that still characterize the relationship between physicians and the health care industry.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/202261/JSC50026.pdf

Health Industry Practices That Create Conflicts of Interest A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers

What is there about alternative medicine that sets it apart from ordinary medicine? The term refers to a remarkably heterogeneous group of theories and practices — as disparate as homeopathy, therapeutic touch, imagery, and herbal medicine. What unites them? Eisenberg et al. defined alternative medicine (now often called complementary medicine) as “medical interventions not taught widely at U.S. medical schools or generally available at U.S. hospitals.”1 That is not a very satisfactory definition, especially since many alternative remedies have recently found their way into the medical mainstream. Medical schools teach alternative medicine, hospitals and health maintenance organizations offer it,2 and . . .

/pdf/alternative-medicine-the-risks-of-untested-and-unregulated-2w8wxhjged.pdf

Alternative Medicine--The Risks of Untested and Unregulated Remedies

A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”): II. Use in medical decision-making

To help the physician decide whether or not to treat a patient who may or may not have a disease, a method has been developed for calculating a therapeutic threshold. If the probability of disease in a given patient exceeds the threshold, the preferable course of action is to treat; if the probability is below the threshold, the preferable course of action is to withhold treatment. This method is applicable in many medical and surgical settings in which some diagnostic uncertainty exists after all appropriate studies have been carried out. The technic not only exposes some of the basic principles of therapeutic decision making in the face of diagnostic uncertainty but also forms a convenient framework for analyzing the impact of "soft" clinical data on the decision-making process. (N Engl J Med 293:229–234, 1975)

Jerome P. Kassirer

Papers

The threshold approach to clinical decision making.

Health Industry Practices That Create Conflicts of Interest A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers

Alternative Medicine--The Risks of Untested and Unregulated Remedies

A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”): II. Use in medical decision-making

Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis.