For those interested in starting an ultrasound program, here is a good sight to start:
http://uicuplab.com/before_you_scan.php
http://uicuplab.com/before_you_scan.php
bigpapa-t":1n6lsmxv said:so let me get this straight.....they are field techs and interpreters? Doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of having data collected and processed without bias? This was the only EPD that was based soley on science, I have my concerns. I'll stick with the CUPLAB for integrity. On a positive note the "before you scan" info is very good.
bigpapa-t
bigpapa-t":1g6f1br3 said:so let me get this straight.....they are field techs and interpreters? Doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of having data collected and processed without bias? This was the only EPD that was based soley on science, I have my concerns. I'll stick with the CUPLAB for integrity. On a positive note the "before you scan" info is very good.
bigpapa-t
bigpapa-t":nf4mifmn said:it is my understanding that the cuplab does not allow any approved techs to interpret as well as not allowing any interpreters to collect and submit images. That is clearly not the case with this other lab, just seems a little sketchy to me....that being said, I am sure everything is on the up and up, it just leaves the door open for improprieties.
bigpapa-t
bigpapa-t":hl0wrfwp said:Understood....
but again I will try to clearly state the following:
in dealing with anything scientific you must try and remove ANY variables...this includes even a possible variable. While I am sure this isnt even a problem, it should be very easy to eliminate the possibilities from ever becoming a problem, agree?
why not remove any question, it just seems that simple to me.
I guess I just prefer it to be as scientific as possible....heck, the fact that ALL the labs use the term "interpret" bothers me to no end!!
why not remove any question, it just seems that simple to me.
I see your point, and I agree......
It's not a subjective interpretation, it's done with software and a matter of the equipment being calibrated properly.3MR":3ve99xbz said:I agree that interpretation is not part of a scientific process.
MikeC":2wqsk7yw said:It's not a subjective interpretation, it's done with software and a matter of the equipment being calibrated properly.3MR":2wqsk7yw said:I agree that interpretation is not part of a scientific process.
How could it not be as scientific as collecting data?
3MR":32e486f2 said:MikeC":32e486f2 said:It's not a subjective interpretation, it's done with software and a matter of the equipment being calibrated properly.3MR":32e486f2 said:I agree that interpretation is not part of a scientific process.
How could it not be as scientific as collecting data?
Its called interpretation. Just be definition its subjective. They are saying this is how their software interprets the data, not this is what it means without doubt.
A different program with different variables may interpret the data differently.
MikeC":35pby9if said:3MR":35pby9if said:MikeC":35pby9if said:It's not a subjective interpretation, it's done with software and a matter of the equipment being calibrated properly.3MR":35pby9if said:I agree that interpretation is not part of a scientific process.
How could it not be as scientific as collecting data?
Its called interpretation. Just be definition its subjective. They are saying this is how their software interprets the data, not this is what it means without doubt.
A different program with different variables may interpret the data differently.
But with software doing the interpreting, wouldn't that be more scientific, consistent, dependable, and reliable than a person looking at a picture and making a judgement call?
Look, you guys started out questioning these folks integrity, which was ridiculous. Now your saying their methods aren't scientific.
Craig was a pioneer in ultrasound and has an impeccable reputation. If you don't want to use them feel free.
But there is no better ultrasound data collection service. Anywhere.
I'm done. Get lost.