English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The selection of individuals to represent a group for any purpose can commit the effort to success or failure from the very outset. The description of this group must reflect what is, in reality, the purpose for which the group is being studied. Considering that reference intervals are designed to assist clinicians during diagnostic triage, criteria must reflect the nature of the subjects entering the system for care. The majority of people seeking care have non-life-threatening, yet troublesome complaints. In other words, persons who are in a  reasonable  state of health and who are not suffering from  significant  illness. Therefore the relevant cohort should fit this description, not individuals who lack any clinical or laboratory issues. Our focus is to employ reference intervals to exclude disease and not to define normality. Normality in the eyes of statisticians is quite different from the word as viewed by clinical staff, yet the term is used interchangeably without concern for its ultimate use. As a result medicine today stumbles over this issue at every turn. Scientists and artists do not speak the same language.

Selecting clinically relevant populations for reference intervals