Exception Fails To Disprove Clinical Prediction Rule

A set of unfavourable clinical outcomes associated with the use of a popular set of clinical prediction rules has unexpectedly served to strengthen the veracity of said rules. According to the Petit-Logique University’s Professor Burt Von Buntleberg, the findings do not suggest a need for any degree of introspective critical judgment of the CPRs.

“Oh good heavens no!” That would be premature” explained the Professor. “In cases where the rule appears to have failed to serve its purpose of predicting an appropriate treatment selection for a given patient, it is not so much the rule has been shown to being fundamentally useless, but rather, that the patient in question represents a statistical anomaly. In more simple terms, so that the feeble minded among your readers can understand, it means the patient’s symptoms are unusually abnormal, outliers if you will. They don’t fit within the parameters of the criteria around which the CPR is designed, you see”.

The Professor paused and leaned back in his chair thoughtfully before continuing, “You know it’s amazing, my colleagues and I marvel at how uncanny it is that we so often seem to get these freakish outliers turning up to our clinic. If I didn’t know any better I would question the veracity of these CPRs haha… But if you’re scientifically gifted like me, you’ll know that strange things can happen with random sample distributions. I’ve been utilising these CPRs for many years and I can testify without a shadow of doubt that they’re totally effective for every patient for whom they’re totally effective for. What more can one ask?”