Too Much, Too Mild, Too Early: Diagnosing the Excessive Expansion of Diagnoses

"My Biomarkers Are Fine, Thank You": On the Biomarkerization of Modern Medicine

Biomarkers are becoming crucial in ever more medical tasks and are proposed to change medicine in profound ways. By biomarking ever more attributes of human life, they tend to blur the distinction between health and disease and come to characterize life as such. Not only do biomarkers strongly influence the professional conception of disease by pervading ever more diagnoses, but they also impact patients' experience of illness. To manage how biomarkers influence patients, professionals, and societies, we urgently need to move from identifying potentially relevant biomarkers to determine their meaning and value to individuals, professionals, and public health.

Kairos in diagnostics

Kairos has been a key concept in medicine for millennia and is frequently understood as "the right time" in relation to treatment. In this study we scrutinize kairos in the context of diagnostics. This has become highly topical as technological developments have caused diagnostics to be performed ever earlier in the disease development. Detecting risk factors, precursors, and predictors of disease (in biomarkers, pre-disease, and pre-pre-disease) has resulted in too early diagnoses, i.e., overdiagnoses. Nonetheless, despite vast advances in science and technology, diagnoses also come too late. Accordingly, timing diagnostics right is crucial. In this article we start with giving a brief overview of the etymology and general use of the concepts of kairos and diagnosis. Then we delimit kairos in diagnostics by analysing "too early" and "too late" diagnosis and by scrutinizing various phases of diagnostics. This leads us to define kairos of diagnostics as the time when there is potential for sufficient information for making a diagnosis that is most helpful for the person. It allows us to conclude that kairos is as important in diagnostics as in therapeutics.

Justification for the 2017 periodontitis classification in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions: A narrative review

Once a while, disease classifications have needed revision because new knowledge has accumulated, and new technologies and better treatments have emerged. Changes made to disease classifications should be trustworthy and openly justified. The periodontitis definition and classification system was changed in 2017 by the 'World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions'. The workshop, comprising clinicians and researchers, resulted in the production of a 23-article special issue that introduced the new definitions and classifications of periodontitis. In this narrative review, we critically review how the changes made to the periodontitis definition and classification were justified in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions. Under each of the eight items of the checklist, we have discussed how the item was or could have been considered in the light of the checklist and its guidance. In our view, the new definition and classification of periodontitis was presented in an understandable way, even though the changes from the previous definition were not made visible. However, the issues of (1) estimated changes in prevalence or incidence, (2) triggers for the change, (3) prognostic ability, (4) repeatability or reproducibility, (5) incremental benefits, (6) incremental harms or (7) net benefits and harms related to the introduction of new classification were not considered in the way suggested in the checklist. Thereby, a balanced assessment of potential benefits and harms associated with the new periodontitis classification system was not presented, and to a large extent it remains unknown if the use of the new classification system will provide more net benefits to patients and to the community than previous systems. It is our view that patients and societies deserve transparent and balanced assessments of the potential benefits and harms associated with the periodontitis classification. Importantly, these should reflect the values and preferences also of the patients and the wider community and consider the impact on resource usage.

Managing the moral expansion of medicine

Science and technology have vastly expanded the realm of medicine. The numbers of and knowledge about diseases has greatly increased, and we can help more people in many more ways than ever before. At the same time, the extensive expansion has also augmented harms, professional responsibility, and ethical concerns. While these challenges have been studied from a wide range of perspectives, the problems prevail. This article adds value to previous analyses by identifying how the moral imperative of medicine has expanded in three ways: (1) from targeting experienced phenomena, such as pain and suffering, to non-experienced phenomena (paraclinical signs and indicators); (2) from addressing present pain to potential future suffering; and (3) from reducing negative wellbeing (pain and suffering) to promoting positive wellbeing. These expansions create and aggravate problems in medicine: medicalization, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, risk aversion, stigmatization, and healthism. Moreover, they threaten to infringe ethical principles, to distract attention and responsibility from other competent agents and institutions, to enhance the power and responsibility of professionals, and to change the professional-beneficiary relationship. In order to find ways to manage the moral expansion of medicine, four traditional ways of setting limits are analyzed and dismissed. However, basic asymmetries in ethics suggest that it is more justified to address people's negative wellbeing (pain and suffering) than their positive wellbeing. Moreover, differences in epistemology, indicate that it is less uncertain to address present pain and suffering than future wellbeing and happiness. Based on these insights the article concludes that the moral imperative of medicine has a gradient from pain and suffering to wellbeing and happiness, and from the present to the future. Hence, in general present pain and suffering have normative priority over future positive wellbeing.