168 research outputs found

    The Holism of Doxastic Justification

    Get PDF
    I argue against the orthodox view of doxastic justification, according to which a belief of a given subject is justified for her just in case the subject has a good reason for the belief and she also bases the belief on that reason. The orthodox view is false, I maintain, because there might be unjustified beliefs that are based on the good reasons that support them. The fault lies with the ‘particularism’ of the orthodox view, which is why it cannot handle those cases where certain ‘holistic’ considerations render an otherwise justified belief unjustified. Accordingly, I argue for a holistic constraint on doxastic justification: whether a subject that bases a particular belief on a reason that supports it is justified in having that belief depends on what she does, cognitively speaking, with that reason vis-à-vis a considerable portion of her other beliefs

    A Hybrid Account of Structural Rationality

    Get PDF
    In this paper, I will present and defend a hybrid account of structural rationality, simultaneously accommodating what two rival accounts, wide-scopism and narrow-scopism, get right. Wide-scopism holds that moving from an incoherent state to a coherent state is always a structurally rational thing to do. Narrow-scopism holds that there are cases in which the particular way in which coherence is achieved matters to structural rationality. The hybrid account I offer here holds that these two claims are compatible and true

    Subclinical immune reactions to viral infections may correlate with child and adolescent diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A preliminary study from Turkey

    Get PDF
    Background: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neuro-developmental disorders of childhood and  adolescence. Studies focusing on the relationship of infectious agents and ADHD are scarce. It is also known that cerebellar injury may lead to  hyperactive behavior. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship  between viral agents of cerebellitis and the diagnosis of ADHD.Methods: The study group was formed of 60 consecutive ADHD patients and 30 healthy children. IgG levels for VZV; HSV-1, CMV, Measles, Mumps, Rubella and EBV were evaluated.Results: Males were significantly higher among patients with ADHD (65% vs. 40%, p=0.025). Patients with ADHD displayed significantly higher positivity for measles IgG (80% vs. 60%, p=0.044). When patients with ADHD were classified according to their pubertal status, adolescents with ADHD displayed higher positivity for mumps (100% vs. 74.4%, p=0.043). Most of the patients were diagnosed with ADHD-Combined or  Hyperactive/Impulsive Subtypes (56.6%) while 43.3% were diagnosed with ADHD-predominantly inattentive type. When patients with subtypes of ADHD were compared in terms of seropositivity, it was found that patients with ADHD-Combined/ Hyperactive-Impulsive subtypes had significantly elevated reactions for Rubella (100% vs. 88.5%, p=0.044).Conclusion: Although limited to a single center and may be prone to sampling biases, our results may support the notion that immune reactions may be related with ADHD among children and adolescents. Further,  prospective studies from multiple centers are needed to support our  findings and establish causality.Key words: ADHD, infection, immunology, measles, rubella, mumps, Ig

    METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. Methods: We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. Result: In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. Conclusion: In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. Critical relevance statement: A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. Key points: • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score (https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community (https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics). Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.
    corecore