The status of heuristics and cognitive biases as a source of diagnostic errors.

Yehia Y. Mishriki ymishriki at RCN.COM
Sun Nov 12 16:07:18 UTC 2017


I am currently reading, /Medicine in Denial/ by Lawrence Weed and 
Lincoln Weed. The quote by Alfred North Whitehead appears in the book.

I find that I am, at the same time, both insulted by and in significant 
agreement with Weed's assertions. He gives little credence to the "art 
of medicine" and to physicians' "intuition", traits which have 
heuristics at their cores.

Yehia Y. Mishriki



On 11/11/2017 2:58 PM, Mark Graber wrote:
>
> As many of you know, I’m a big fan of the ‘stop and think’ approach to 
> improve diagnosis, but in defense of System 1 let me offer you 2 
> interesting quotes:
>
> Mark
>
> “It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and 
> by eminent people making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit 
> of thinking about what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. 
> Civilization advances by extending the number of operations which we 
> can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are 
> like cavalry charges in a battle -- they are strictly limited in 
> number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive 
> moments.”
>
> A.N. Whitehead, 1911 (in J Bargh, 1999)
>
> **
>
> “others are surprised by how quickly I make big decisions, but I’ve 
> learned to trust my instincts….The day I realized it was smart to be 
> shallow was, for me, a deep experience.”   Donald Trump.  Quoted in 
> the New Yorker  Sept 26 2016: Evan Osnos  “President Trump”
>
> *From: *Pat Croskerry <croskerry at EASTLINK.CA>
> *Reply-To: *Listserv ImproveDx <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>, 
> Pat Croskerry <croskerry at EASTLINK.CA>
> *Date: *Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:17 AM
> *To: *Listserv ImproveDx <IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
> *Subject: *Re: [IMPROVEDX] The status of heuristics and cognitive 
> biases as a source of diagnostic errors.
>
> Good discussion. I  want to pick up on one of  the points  made about 
> heuristics and the tendency to call them biases when they fail.
>
> We can maybe simplify the discussion by emphasising that, as has been 
> noted here,  heuristics are inherent in human decision making, and it 
> is virtually impossible not to engage them at some point in the 
> decision making process – unless someone was working in a situation 
> where there was little room for any error e.g. a space station. It is 
> hard not to find something good to say about any particular heuristic, 
> and in this more relaxed setting on Earth, we cannot function without 
> them.  Anything that is abbreviated, fast, and frugal, by definition, 
> is incomplete and will predictably fail at some point, so we are all 
> vulnerable to heuristic failure. The essence of good decision making 
> is to monitor the output from System 1 – we need to be ever-vigilant 
> in this, and recognise that it isn’t so much that the heuristic 
> becomes a bias when it fails, instead, what has failed is our 
> monitoring (astronauts have commented on the tedium of relentlessly 
> checking, and re-checking everything in space). Metacognition, 
> reflection and mindfulness are the terms used to describe monitoring – 
> these processes are learnable and coachable, and should be part of our 
> armamentarium in training clinical decision making.
>
> Some people seem to have difficulty with the term ‘bias’ including 
> those who deny outright that diagnostic failure may be due to bias – 
> perhaps they might more readily accept things if the event was 
> characterized as ‘heuristic failure’. An alternative terminological 
> strategy was used some time ago when we tried to get over the negative 
> connotation of the word ‘bias’ by calling it ‘disposition to respond’ 
> , again, expecting that it might be easier to accept that dispositions 
> to respond are vulnerable to failure. Whatever we call them, they are 
> abundant in all walks of life.
>
> Pat
>
> *From:* Linda M. Isbell [mailto:lisbell at PSYCH.UMASS.EDU]
> *Sent:* November 11, 2017 10:49 AM
> *To:* IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] The status of heuristics and cognitive 
> biases as a source of diagnostic errors.
>
> Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my earlier comment.  I 
> too understand both sides of this situation, as well as the confusion 
> inherent in discussions of heuristics and their value.  As a social 
> psychologist, I would never say that heuristics are not VERY valuable 
> - they are - they do lead us to navigate our worlds with great success 
> most of the time.  If we didn't have heuristics, or somehow found a 
> way to eliminate them (impossible), we'd all screw up decision making 
> far more often than we do now!!  As one famous social psychologist 
> said long ago about the use of categories - "orderly living depends 
> upon it."  Indeed, this is very ture.   So heuristics (and use of 
> categories, for example, as one type of heuristic) are NOT inherently 
> bad - generally the opposite is true.  Certainly the use of 
> pattern-matching and other strategies of this sort lead to 
> considerable diagnostic success oftentimes.  We certainly wouldn't 
> want to intervene here.   The problem, however, is that sometimes (and 
> by that I mean FAR more often than we could possibly realize), we 
> SYSTEMATICALLY use heuristics in ways that are harmful and do lead to 
> diagnostic failure and failures in all sorts of decisions.  We are 
> often quite unaware of this.  Consider the problem of health care 
> disparities, which are a significant problem in medicine (and 
> diagnosis) - and other spheres of life.  People who present with 
> physical health concerns and happen to have a comorbid mental illness, 
> for example, are more likely to be misdiagnosed, undertreated, 
> mistreated, ignored, etc.  We see disparities for race as well.  Why 
> is this happening?  I am sure we can generate many possibilities (and 
> of course it is an empirical question that some have already addressed 
> in the literature), but one that is important and impossible to ignore 
> is the fact that people (including health care providers) have 
> stereotypes about different groups and apply these when making 
> decisions.  Applying a stereotype (which is a type of heuristic) can 
> lead to very bad outcomes. Indeed their are some very noteworthy 
> mortality gaps between different groups in society, with those that 
> are the targets of stereotypes faring far worse than those who are 
> not.  The problem then, is NOT that heuristics are bad, it is that 
> heuristics are sometimes SYSTEMATICALLY applied in ways that are 
> detrimental.  The "solution" then is to identify empirically when 
> heuristics are being used in systematically problematic ways, which 
> lead to systematically bad outcomes, and design interventions to 
> remedy this particularly problematic application of heuristics.  This 
> can be done, this should be done, and I am working on research on this 
> issue.
>
> In the end, I think we all know and accept that many things contribute 
> to diagnostic error.  Of course lack of knowledge, experience, etc. 
> are notable contributors (but they are also relatively easy to fix it 
> seems compared to some others).  But so too is the systematic 
> application of heuristics that systematically lead to errors.  In the 
> absence of evidence that something systematic is happening, I would 
> agree that it may be hard to intervene to reduce diagnostic errors in 
> a highly significant way.  However, we know that something systematic 
> is happening with some patient populations for sure, and for these 
> patient populations, the misapplication of heuristics (e.g., 
> stereotypes as one example) is contributing to a significant mortality 
> gap, which has widespread health implications.
>
> So, I think we likely agree more than we disagree.  And I think it is 
> perhaps more semantic than some people might think.  Mostly, I think, 
> discussions around the disadvantages and advantages of heuristics in 
> any decision making requires that we contextualize the conditions we 
> are talking about carefully.  Social cognitive processes aren't 
> inherently good or bad - most social cognitive processes have evolved 
> BECAUSE they are adaptive - the goal is to find out the conditions 
> under which different processes lead to good versus bad decisions, and 
> attempt to intervene where necessary to improve the outcomes.
>
> Best,
>
> Linda
>
> ---
>
> Linda M. Isbell, Ph.D.
> Professor, Psychology
> Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
> University of Massachusetts
> 135 Hicks Way -- 630 Tobin Hall
> Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
> Office Phone:  413-545-5960
> Website: http://people.umass.edu/lisbell/
>
> On 2017-11-09 13:57, Shojania, Dr. Kaveh wrote:
>
>     I can see both sides of this debate/discussion.
>
>     I think one of the reasons for questioning the importance of
>     heuristics as a cause of diagnostic errors is not the issue of
>     frequency. It's more the following: heuristics are so often
>     associated with diagnostic successes, that it's hard to argue they
>     are the major problem.
>
>     If something (in this case,  set of heuristics) works 95% of the
>     time, then it's hard to say it's a problem. or, rather, it's hard
>     to argue that it should be abandoned
>
>     The vast majority of diagnoses are correctly made within less than
>     a minute. That's a combination of pattern recognition and 'common
>     things being common'.
>
>     So, to say that heuristics are to blame for most/many diagnostic
>     errors doesn't really make sense, since they are reasonable for
>     most diagnostic successes.
>
>     It doesn't help that the same behavior will be called diagnostic
>     acuity when it's correct and a cog bias when it is not – in other
>     words, it is not really possible to distinguish diagnostic acumen
>     from diagnostic bias until the outcome is known, which means it's
>     not that helpful of a concept in terms of preventing errors.
>
>     Except that, if one does want to reduce diagnostic errors, one
>     needs to do something. And, that something is not so much to get
>     rid of heuristics it is to recognize when one needs to shift to
>     more deliberate and systematic thinking.
>
>     Sometimes that can happen during the first encounter with a
>     patient – the patient says something or the doctor notices
>     something that doesn't fit the pattern. The good diagnostician is
>     not the person who avoids heuristics, but the one who listens to
>     the little voice in their head saying 'Something's not quite right
>     - time to step back and think about this more'
>
>     This is what many say about System I vs System Ii , thinking fast,
>     thinking slow, etc
>
>     So, I am not saying anything original here. I am just pointing out
>     that it maybe it's a semantic point. But, I think it is a bit more
>     than that.
>
>     We have a situation that heuristics turn up frequently both in
>     cases that do involve errors in diagnosis  and ones that do not.
>
>     From an epidemiologic point of view, that usually means that
>     heuristics can't be a major cause of error. That's why we do case
>     control studies – if the exposure turns up as often among cases as
>     among controls, it's not a risk factor for the disease of interest.
>
>     This happens a lot in patient safety. One does a root cause
>     analysis of a critical incident and identifies that the resident
>     on the team was new that day, there was a temp nurse from an
>     agency, the patient didn't speak English etc etc
>
>     It's tempting to jump on each of these as important causes of
>     whatever bad thing happened.  The problem is that these same
>     factors are present in so many other cases where nothing went
>     wrong. The reality is that each of these factors may well play a
>     small contributory  role. From a logical point of view, though,
>     it's still hard to argue that X commonly causes Y, when X is
>     commonly present in so many cases of Not Y. And, from a practical
>     point of view, when X leads to a desirable outcome most of the
>     time, why not do it and just get better at recognizing when that's
>     not working? (In practice, we get good not just at recognizing
>     when it is not working out now, but recognizing critical situation
>     where the patient would suffer a bad outcome before we have time
>     to shift our thinking. Eg, , that's why one constructs a
>     differential diagnosis when seeing an cutely unwell patient –
>     because one doesn't want the patient to suffer a bad outcome
>     before one realizes the need to shift out of heuristic mode.)
>
>     -kgs
>
>     Kaveh G. Shojania, MD
>
>     Professor and Vice Chair, Quality & Innovation
>
>     Department of Medicine
>
>     Director, University of Toronto
>
>     Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (www.cquips.ca
>     <http://www.cquips.ca/>)
>
>     Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
>
>     Room H468, 2075 Bayview Avenue
>
>     Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5
>
>     Editor-in-chief, /BMJ Quality & Safety/
>
>     *From:*Grubenhoff, Joe [mailto:Joe.Grubenhoff at CHILDRENSCOLORADO.ORG]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, November 09, 2017 1:17 AM
>     *To:* IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>     *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] The status of heuristics and cognitive
>     biases as a source of diagnostic errors.
>
>     I too share a Dr. Isbell's reluctance to claim that heuristics are
>     not a significant source of diagnostic error.
>
>     Having read /Thinking Fast and Slow/, I think that Kahneman and
>     Tversky point out not that heuristics represent faulty
>     probabilistic reasoning but rather a complete disregard of
>     probabilities.
>
>     In the Linda experiment, the subject is provided a series of data
>     points that are not necessarily predictive of her likelihood of
>     being a feminist  but the subject draws inferences that provide
>     cognitive coherence which make the less probable (statistically
>     speaking) combination of being a feminist and a bank teller seem
>     more likely than simply being a bank teller (all feminist bank
>     tellers are wholly contained within the larger population of bank
>     tellers).
>
>     In contrast, the "analogous" experiment contains faulty logic. A
>     man presenting with a case description consistent with a PE may
>     also have a UTI but the probability that he has a UTI in the
>     absence of any signs/symptoms or data predictive of a UTI is
>     highly unlikely. Further, the Venn diagram for the populations of
>     patients with UTI and with PE overlap but one does not wholly
>     contain the other except in very unique circumstances. To put it
>     differently, the prevalence of UTI and PE can be known as,
>     theoretically, could the presence of both existing together. But
>     it cannot be taken as given that in all circumstances one group
>     wholly contains the other. Contrast this with Liinda: ALL cases of
>     feminist bank tellers must be contained within the group "bank
>     tellers." I think most physicians would say that, in the absence
>     of a more reasonable alternative answer (Jim has only a PE), they
>     would be forced to choose "Jim has a UTI and PE" but would scratch
>     their heads as to why those were the only two answers provided as
>     they are implausible.
>
>     Work by Frank Papa suggests that representativeness IS very likely
>     a key component of arriving at a correct diagnosis. Cases with a
>     more typical presentation (e.g. AMI) are more likely to be
>     correctly diagnosed than cases in which the features are atypical.
>
>     I don't understand this sentence:We note we do not need to invoke
>     the heuristic of representativeness as an explanation for answer
>     (a) because probabilistic reasoning has not been employed in this
>     instance.
>
>     If the theoretical clinician choosing between answer (a) and (b)
>     is not using representativeness (a heuristic strategy) and not
>     using probabilistic reasoning, then how does she arrive at
>     choosing (a) over (b). It seems the clinician choosing (a) is
>     indeed using heuristics because she would have to ignore the
>     improbable scenario in which Jim has a completely asymptomatic UTI
>     in the presence of a PE (or alternatively, the clinical vignette
>     is purposefully deceptive by leaving out any information about a
>     UTI dx which is not reflective of actual practice).
>
>     The proposition that the solution to avoiding diagnostic errors
>     requires "extensive knowledge and experience of diseases" ignores
>     the finite capacity of the human mind and suggests the an approach
>     to diagnosis that Marewski and Gigerenzer (/Heuristic decision
>     making in medicine - Marewski and Gigerenzer Dialogues in Clinical
>     Neuroscience - Vol 14 //*. *//No. 1 //*. *//2012) /might call
>     unbounded rationality. This is not an efficient (or even possible)
>     strategy especially in light of the fact that the pre-test
>     probabilities of many diseases based solely on history and exam
>     findings are unknown and, at least in pediatrics, we have very few
>     good screening and confirmatory tests for the conditions we
>     encounter.
>
>     Lastly, while admittedly anecdotal, argues the point the Dr.
>     Isbell made with respect to experienced physicians relying on
>     wrong information when forming a diagnosis.
>
>     A previously physically normal teen female with a PMHX of
>     depression and anxiety is being transferred from a community
>     hospital after EMS was called to help change her diaper because
>     she would not get out of bed to defecate. She had been admitted 2x
>     in the preceding 3 weeks for "weakness" and both Psychiatry and
>     Neurology had consulted agreeing that the patient suffered from
>     conversion disorder. On the 2^nd admission and LP to evaluated for
>     Guillain Barre was normal as was an MRI of the brain and spinal
>     cord. Presently the patient cannot move the lower extremities, has
>     absent DTRs and is suctioning her mouth with a Yankauer due
>     inability to swallow secretions. She is again diagnosed by the
>     peds ER doc (Me) as conversion disorder but cannot be admitted to
>     Psych due to inability to participate in ADLs so is admitted to
>     the floor. After a few days she develops SVT and AMS and a repeat
>     LP is performed showing albuminocytologic dissociation and a Dx of
>     GBS is made.
>
>     If you gave me a test and asked: Are the CSF changes of GBS always
>     present at the time of clinical manifestations of sx I would
>     answer "no". And I have cared for patients in the past with a
>     similar scenario. Thus, I had the knowledge and the experience to
>     know better. However, I anchored on the prior workup and allowed
>     the psych-out error and Dx momentum to land on Conversion disorder
>     as the diagnosis. I know the prevalence of neither so arguing that
>     probabilities entered in to my diagnostic reasoning is
>     unsubstantiated.
>
>     Good food for thought.
>
>     jg
>
>     *From:* Linda M. Isbell [mailto:lisbell at PSYCH.UMASS.EDU]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2017 7:26 PM
>     *To:* IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>     *Subject:* Re: [IMPROVEDX] The status of heuristics and cognitive
>     biases as a source of diagnostic errors.
>
>     Interesting paper, thanks for sharing it; however, I do disagree
>     with the notion that heuristics and biases are not a significant
>     concern in diagnosis.  A large body of research demonstrates the
>     pervasive use of heuristics across pretty much every domain ever
>     investigated over several decades.  This is not at all
>     controversial in psychology.  So, it is unclear to me why
>     diagnosis would be exempt from this - ???  I certainly agree that
>     lack of medical knowledge or experience will certainly lead to
>     diagnostic errors. However, how do we explain diagnostic errors
>     that emerge when a provider has both knowledge and experience?  
>     One cannot assume, for example, that if an error occurs, one must
>     not have had the knowledge or experience to reach the correct
>     diagnosis (though this can be assessed). Surely very smart and
>     experienced doctors sometimes rely on the wrong information when
>     assessing patients and forming a diagnosis - the same doctors who
>     may well have the necessary information in their heads but, for
>     some reason, they relied on something other than this information.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Linda
>
>     ---
>
>     Linda M. Isbell, Ph.D.
>     Professor, Psychology
>     Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
>     University of Massachusetts
>     135 Hicks Way -- 630 Tobin Hall
>     Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
>     Office Phone:  413-545-5960
>     Website: http://people.umass.edu/lisbell/
>
>     On 2017-11-07 06:48, Jain, Bimal P.,M.D. wrote:
>
>         In this attached paper, I point out that heuristics and biases
>         are a source of inferential errors only in a setting in which
>         the normatively correct method of reasoning is probabilistic.
>
>         I argue that the notion of heuristics and biases as a source
>         of diagnostic errors may not be relevant in diagnosis  which
>          is not probabilistic in practice as I point out in this paper.
>
>         I suggest the main sources of diagnostic errors are lack of
>         knowledge and/or experience.
>
>         Please review and comment on this paper.
>
>         Thanks.
>
>         Bimal
>
>         Bimal P Jain MD
>
>         Northshore Medical Center
>
>         Lynn MA 01904.
>
>         The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person
>         to whom it is
>         addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error
>         and the e-mail
>         contains patient information, please contact the Partners
>         Compliance HelpLine at
>         http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was
>         sent to you in error
>         but does not contain patient information, please contact the
>         sender and properly
>         dispose of the e-mail.
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>         <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>         To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
>         http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
>
>         or send email to:
>         IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>         <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>         Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>         http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>         Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving
>         Diagnosis in Medicine
>
>         To learn more about SIDM visit:
>         http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
>
>
>     or send email to:
>     IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>
>     Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving
>     Diagnosis in Medicine
>
>     To learn more about SIDM visit:
>     http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail, including any attachments,
>     is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain
>     confidential and privileged information.  If you are not an
>     intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this
>     message to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>     reading, copying, using or distributing this message is
>     prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact
>     the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
>     message from your computer system.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
>
>
>     or send email to:
>     IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>
>     Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving
>     Diagnosis in Medicine
>
>     To learn more about SIDM visit:
>     http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
>     /*This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may
>     contain confidential, personal and/or health information
>     (information which may be subject to legal restrictions on use,
>     retention and/or disclosure).  No waiver of confidence is intended
>     by virtue of communication via the internet.  Any review or
>     distribution by anyone other than the person(s) for whom it was
>     originally intended is strictly prohibited.  If you have received
>     this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and destroy all
>     copies.*/
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
>
>     or send email to:
>     IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>     <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
>     Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at:
>     http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>     Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving
>     Diagnosis in Medicine
>
>     To learn more about SIDM visit:
>     http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG 
> <mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1 
>
>
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG 
> <mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>
>
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis 
> in Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1 
>
>
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
>
>
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis 
> in Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1 
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
>
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: 
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis 
> in Medicine
>
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/ 







Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20171112/06af1e53/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list