 |
|
Is Neuromyelitis Optica a Distinct Entity?
E. S. Roach, MD
Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):906.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Precise characterization of clinical subtypes allows us to better understand common pathogenic mechanisms, more accurately predict an individual's clinical course, and, one hopes, obtain better treatment results. Carefully developed clinical definitions also add precision and reproducibility to clinical research. However, the process of pattern recognition that underpins our efforts to categorize disease is imperfect and sometimes arbitrary, so our classifications are always subject to revision when new information comes to light or when prior interpretations are questioned. It is easy to become so immersed in a familiar way of thinking that we fail to see that most disease classifications are merely working definitions that are bound to change over time. In fact, evolution of our concepts and terms generally mirrors an improved understanding of a disease, so we should not resist such change.
We initially define many conditions solely by their clinical findings and must later . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED ARTICLES
Neuromyelitis Optica Is Distinct From Multiple Sclerosis
Brian G. Weinshenker
Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):899-901.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Neuromyelitis Optica Is a Variant of Multiple Sclerosis
Steven L. Galetta and Jeffrey Bennett
Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):901-903.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is Neuromyelitis Optica Distinct From Multiple Sclerosis?: Something for "Lumpers" and "Splitters"
Elliot M. Frohman and Douglas Kerr
Arch Neurol. 2007;64(6):903-905.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
