Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
272
Posts
272
Users
0
Reactions
17
Views
17/06/2019 4:24 pm
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update
Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notice. They have different sources and may affect different claims.
17/06/2019 5:03 pm
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update
Keep a visible correction near the affected material and a linked changelog entry. Readers who saved the earlier version should be able to understand what changed.
17/06/2019 5:05 pm
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update
Ask whether the changed figure affects the archive’s interpretation. Updating a citation alone may leave an unsupported conclusion in the opening summary.
17/06/2019 5:32 pm
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update
If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavailable document is not a reason to invent its contents.
17/06/2019 6:14 pm
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update
The final note should distinguish corrected data transcription, changed source evidence and revised interpretation. Preserve that distinction in subsequent exports.
17/06/2019 6:47 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
A value has been quoted without units, assay method or reference interval. What would make the discussion interpretable?
Exercise RESEARCH-05038/8: address this question within its stated limits.
17/06/2019 7:28 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context in a private clinical record. A forum comparison cannot diagnose a condition; a qualified clinician must interpret individual results.
17/06/2019 7:35 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Clarification for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: the point beginning “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
17/06/2019 8:02 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Method note for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: use “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
17/06/2019 8:59 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Limit of the answer in “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
17/06/2019 9:31 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Correction note for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: retain the wording beginning “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
17/06/2019 10:02 pm
Case 9 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
A paper proposes a mechanism but the summary describes it as an established clinical effect. How can the note be corrected?
Exercise RESEARCH-05038/9: address this question within its stated limits.
17/06/2019 10:25 pm
Case 8 — Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?
Summary draft for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: the answer addresses “Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context…”; the related point is “A forum comparison cannot diagnose a condition; a qualified…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
17/06/2019 11:23 pm
Case 9 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
State the study design and what was actually measured before discussing the proposed mechanism. Keep speculation explicitly labelled and avoid translating it into treatment advice.
17/06/2019 11:30 pm
Case 9 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Clarification for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: the point beginning “State the study design and what was actually measured…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Share: