diagnostic

An hour later a call is made to a diagnostic center by the first person. The next day, they call their mother and a surgeon.

You can't run any diagnostic tests on patients. As someone who spent several years as a neuro tech, this isn't true.

I get an invalid cert diagnostic. You attempted to reach www.

Watching operators is the best diagnostic tool available. When you see a c-clamp or duct tape on the machine, you know exactly what needs workin' on next!

That all allow for lower dose and noise resulting in better diagnostic quality. MRI is truly the cutting edge of human achievement.

You can't run any diagnostic tests on patients. It's mostly a field of educated guessing and confirmation bias.

If you walk into a doctor's office and say your family has a history of heart disease and you're concerned, they'll run a standard diagnostic to see if there is a problem. If there isn't, they'll give you generic advice.

That's roughly how it's diagnosed in the diagnostic manual used by most psychiatrists: check off a list of symptoms, if you have enough, you're depressed. It's like going to the doctor and explaining that your stomach hurts and they say "well, looks like you have abdominal pain, here's some Advil."

You think diagnostic services sold to doctors aren't a concern for the FDA? Virtually every medical product or service the FDA regulates is marketed primarily to doctors.

Microsoft licensing, particularly dev tools and SQL is incredibly expensive and an order of magnitude more expensive on deployment and diagnostic time than anything else. We're like that now.

"We believe access to accurate, affordable, real-time diagnostic information is a basic human right." There's a bit of a conflict-of-interest if the company that makes money providing "X" declares that "X" is a basic human right.

I agree with NNQ that it's very troubling to bandy around diagnostic labels like this, and deem people to be dangerous, just because of a tentative probabilistic diagnosis.

I think some IT person was freaking out that they had downtime and slightly exaggerated the life endangering part, they likely just lost information that may have been used in a future diagnostic manner.

Finally, the diagnostic/procedural terminology in this dataset is impenetrable to most people. For example, does anyone on HN know what "transient ischemia" is?

A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry knows how to bill psychological conditions.

Implement a common format because that'll make debugging and workarounds easier, add a little diagnostic console or log in case your users have a problem you didn't expect, make backups of data you destructively modify, and so on. We all idolize Mac Airs now, for beautifully-designed and slick software.

The fundamental problem is not people's flawed logic, but the psychological diagnostic tests. Psychologists broadly categorize most disorders because they cannot find a reliable symptom that also acts as evidence of a disorder.

I am part of a local "journal club" of psychology researchers and graduate students in psychology at my alma mater university, and what several of those researchers are seeking are more reliable diagnostic criteria based on biological information.