Difference between revisions of "Libre Pathology"

Second, few pathology textbooks are any good. Most are laden with dense text and impractical when looking down the [[microscope]]. The philosophy is all wrong -- the emphasis is on making dense text. Coming from engineering, where it is said textbook writers are paid by the figure and table, the people writing pathology textbooks, by and large, have it backward.  The philosophy here is deliver the goods straight and give a [[differential diagnosis|differential]]. Tables are considered highly desirable and decision trees useful. Dense text is a weakness.

The task taken up here is no small one and it is challenging as [[pathologist]]s not only often disagree on whether a certain feature is present, but also on whether it is even relevant to the diagnosis! Psychiatrists, in this respect, have to be envied, they at least agree on the criteria. With things as they are, it is shocking to think that the gold standard in medicine is build on this - foundation of shifting sand.