About this Research Topic
Medical practice, today, is increasingly under the guidance of statistical-mathematical models that are, undoubtedly, valuable tools but, at the same time, they are, by deﬁnition, partial representation of the reality. Indeed, given that the statistics may be more or less adequate, a model is still a subjective interpretation of the researcher and is also inﬂuenced by the historical context in which it operates. The appropriate use of models and their output can contribute to effective treatment strategies, however, misuse of these models or misinterpretation of their output can mislead decision-making.
Basic knowledge of the concepts, which are used to generate models, will provide the clinician with the insight needed to critically evaluate medical literature based on mathematical models. However, there are many limitations in the correct use of models, no matter how technology has improved and medical databases have grown. Some limitations are inherent in a model, such as when a model appears precise but its output is uncertain, while others arise when models are used, such as the uncertain accuracy of input data and the questionable operational status of a model.
The aim of this Research Topic is to encourage the submission of critical reviews on the correct use of guidelines in clinical practice. Scientists from different ﬁelds are welcomed to provide and evaluate research methodologies developed for the improvement of patient care, for a better understanding and guiding of clinical decisions, as well as to present valid research of actual patients. All aspects of the research topic will be considered, from the statistical-mathematical models to the funding ones, including the doctor-patient relationships. Also, historical perspectives on the advent of mathematics at the bedside are eligible.
Keywords: diagnosis, treatment strategies, multifactoral, risk factors, non-linear dynamics
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.