《循证医学》课程教学资源（书籍文献）流行病学词典 A Dictionary of Epidemiology（Fifth Edition，Miquel Porta）.pdf_大学文库

Preface THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO GOOGLE, AND NO WIKIPEDIA THEN SEEMINGLY CENTURIES ago, when the previous edition of this dictionary came out in 2001. And of the respected dictionaries, very little was"posted on the Internet. Hard to believe. How did we manage, how could we ever have worked? But we did, we surely did: with open minds, critical sense, intellectual rigor.. No google or wiki or nformation technology (Ir) whatsoever will change that. The need to do the epidemiological work with"that Now we have thousands of webs and wikis with millions of papers, definitions, and discussions regarding terms at ourvery fingertips. Many are truly authoritative. You'll find them-some, selected-duly referenced at the end of this book.Yes, we googled and used the wikipedia, ""surfed"and"visited"many remote, beautiful places. To surf, to post . whew, these terms will soon be obsolete, won't they? We continue to seek and to find meaning: in PubMed/Medline, in online textbooks and websites. Foremost, within the main dictionaries, -which we read often while writing this new edition, and which I hope you will always use in case of doubt or simply to enrich the definitions that we offer here(See pages 265 and 273-289. At-and through-"places"such as High Wire, ScienceDirect Scopus, SciELO, ProQuest, Synergy, ISI Web of knowledge, Google, Yahoo, Live Search.. what yesterday was an unthinkable utopia has become an "achievable utopia, "in many places actually achieved daily: the infinite library, and with it the unlimited dictionary too. I wish Borges were alive to enjoy it, if not actually to see it. since he was blind So what sense does it make, to craft a dictionary? Simple: in a radically new way, the"IEA dictionary, ""Lasts dictionary"can be as relevant--or more so as it has been before. Because we have again, as always, critically listened and read, thought, discussed, and selected terms, meanings and definitions. With"that open minds, critical sense, common sense, intellectual rigor, creativity, flexibility, raftsmanship. . And because nowadays, with more"noise "than ever in history, sifting, decanting-selection with"that-is more valuable than ever before. You will judge, but writing this dictionary confirmed to me that it was perfectly feasible to achieve a normative purpose and an informative one. With help of the highest possible academic level from many colleagues(duly acknowledged later), I tried to integrate two approaches to dictionary making: expert-opinion-based prescription (to aid production) and corpus-based description(to aid decoding).Meanings of scientific terms need to be proposed and may occasionally be imposed--on the basis of expert advice; yet expert

There was virtually no Google, and no Wikipedia then, seemingly centuries ago, when the previous edition of this dictionary came out in 2001. And of the respected dictionaries, very little was “posted on the Internet.” Hard to believe. How did we manage, how could we ever have worked? But we did, we surely did: with open minds, critical sense, intellectual rigor. . . . No google or wiki or information technology (IT) whatsoever will change that. The need to do the epidemiological work with “that.” Now we have thousands of webs and wikis with millions of papers, defi nitions, and discussions regarding terms at our very fi ngertips. Many are truly authoritative. You’ll fi nd them – some, selected – duly referenced at the end of this book. Yes, we googled and used the Wikipedia, “surfed” and “visited” many remote, beautiful places. To surf, to post . . . whew, these terms will soon be obsolete, won’t they? We continue to seek and to fi nd meaning: in PubMed/Medline, in online textbooks and websites. Foremost, within the main dictionaries,1–3 which we read often while writing this new edition, and which I hope you will always use in case of doubt or simply to enrich the defi nitions that we offer here (See pages 265 and 273–289). At—and through—“places” such as HighWire, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SciELO, ProQuest, Synergy, ISI Web of knowledge, Google, Yahoo, Live Search . . . what yesterday was an unthinkable utopia has become an “achievable utopia,” in many places actually achieved daily: the infi nite library, and with it the unlimited dictionary too. I wish Borges were alive to enjoy it, if not actually to see it, since he was blind. So what sense does it make, to craft a dictionary? Simple: in a radically new way, the “IEA dictionary,” “Last’s dictionary” can be as relevant—or more so— as it has been before. Because we have again, as always, critically listened and read, thought, discussed, and selected terms, meanings and defi nitions. With “that”: open minds, critical sense, common sense, intellectual rigor, creativity, fl exibility, craftsmanship. . . . And because nowadays, with more “noise” than ever in history, sifting, decanting—selection with “that”—is more valuable than ever before. You will judge, but writing this dictionary confi rmed to me that it was perfectly feasible to achieve a normative purpose and an informative one. With help of the highest possible academic level from many colleagues (duly acknowledged later), I tried to integrate two approaches to dictionary making: expert-opinion-based prescription (to aid production) and corpus-based description (to aid decoding).395 Meanings of scientifi c terms need to be proposed —and may occasionally be imposed—on the basis of expert advice; yet experts Preface ix

Preface and specialists can also keep an ear for actual usage, from which meanings must also be extracted. When we were choosing terms and meanings, we not only kept epidemiological theory and general logic in mind, but usage as well, and often attested explicitly the different uses of polysemic terms. The word"dictionary"is itself notoriously polysemic. 3 This book shows how comfortable the coexistence healthy"micropolysemic"variation in the terms and definitions. This edition also reflects, I believe, how plural--professionally, scientifically, culturally, and ideologically--epidemiologists are John Last's outstanding first four editions were themselves the result of a highly comprehensive and inclusive process of selection of terms and definitions: some 20 years of fantastic collaborative work by several hundred contributors since the early 1980s. The five editions are an extraordinary"record-a"DVD, if you wish, or an"mp4-of the evolution of epidemiology during the last quarter century. I think they are also excellent materials for a sociology of epidemiology Therefore, as we continued the process and revised the last edition, we kept ell in mind many types of reader, most with unimaginable resources, smart, IT-wise. Although you are cordially invited to pull the many strings that this book holds by simply reading and turning its pages with your fingers(odd and familiar as this may at once seem), we assumed that these pages were just a stop on your journey: perhaps you just came here from Oxford Reference Online and will next be at The Cochrane Library. Who could know? You know Not only can you always expand and progress on what you find here, we know you can always assess, contrast, verify. Quite a responsibility for an editor of a dictionary. This duty is not new, but it surely works on a different scale nowa days. It is now so easy to find that we were wrong, narrow-minded, off beam too punctilious In the meantime, the ancestral book and our beloved library have not died. Neither did the paper journal. News of the death of academic journals--loudly proclaimed in the early years of this, the long awaited twenty-first century-were premature. We therefore may hope that this book will again find a place in your mind and be close to your heart. It's light in weight, its pages will welcome your handwriting, it can be comfortably read out there in the sunlight-batteries are not needed My call for contributions to this 5th edition was widely disseminated beginnin early in 2006--prominently, in the International Journal of Epidemiology and he Newsletter of the International Epidemiological Association(IEA), the worldwide scientific organization of epidemiologists that has nurtured all editions. The call was operationally answered by 224 professionals who registered in the wiki that we had set up with Oxford University Press. When invited to choose the sentence that best described their professional relationship with epidemiology, 67% of respondents selected"I have some to extensive training in epidemiology

and specialists can also keep an ear for actual usage, from which meanings must also be extracted. When we were choosing terms and meanings, we not only kept epidemiological theory and general logic in mind, but usage as well, and often attested explicitly the different uses of polysemic terms. The word “dictionary” is itself notoriously polysemic.395 This book shows how comfortable the coexistence of diverse meanings of “dictionary” can be. More importantly, it also shows a healthy “micropolysemic” variation395 in the terms and defi nitions. This edition also refl ects, I believe, how plural—professionally, scientifi cally, culturally, and ideologically—epidemiologists are. John Last’s outstanding fi rst four editions were themselves the result of a highly comprehensive and inclusive process of selection of terms and defi nitions: some 20 years of fantastic collaborative work by several hundred contributors since the early 1980s. The fi ve editions are an extraordinary “record” —a “DVD,” if you wish, or an “mp4”— of the evolution of epidemiology during the last quarter century. I think they are also excellent materials for a sociology of epidemiology. Therefore, as we continued the process and revised the last edition, we kept well in mind many types of reader, most with unimaginable resources, smart, “IT-wise.” Although you are cordially invited to pull the many strings that this book holds by simply reading and turning its pages with your fi ngers (odd and familiar as this may at once seem), we assumed that these pages were just a stop on your journey: perhaps you just came here from Oxford Reference Online and will next be at The Cochrane Library. Who could know? You know. Not only can you always expand and progress on what you fi nd here, we know you can always assess, contrast, verify. Quite a responsibility for an editor of a dictionary. This duty is not new, but it surely works on a different scale nowadays. It is now so easy to fi nd that we were wrong, narrow-minded, off beam, too punctilious . . . In the meantime, the ancestral book and our beloved library have not died. Neither did the paper journal. News of the death of academic journals—loudly proclaimed in the early years of this, the long awaited twenty-fi rst century—were premature. We therefore may hope that this book will again fi nd a place in your mind and be close to your heart. It’s light in weight, its pages will welcome your handwriting, it can be comfortably read out there in the sunlight—batteries are not needed. * * * My call for contributions to this 5th edition was widely disseminated beginning early in 2006—prominently, in the International Journal of Epidemiology and the Newsletter of the International Epidemiological Association (IEA), the worldwide scientifi c organization of epidemiologists that has nurtured all editions. The call was operationally answered by 224 professionals who registered in the wiki that we had set up with Oxford University Press. When invited to choose the sentence that best described their professional relationship with epidemiology, 67% of respondents selected “I have some to extensive training in epidemiology Preface x

Preface and currently work or have professional experience as an epidemiologist you may also have professional experience in other fields, "27% answered"While my main job is not as an epidemiologist, I often use epidemiologic knowledge, methods or reasoning in my work, " 2% selected"I have little to no training in epidemiology and I seldom or never use it in my work lyour contribution nevertheless welcomed, "and 4%"Other. " These data provide a factual back ground for the next paragraphs. Is this dictionary an attempt to demarcate epidemiology neatly? I dont think oOr Id rather think it is not, to the extent that a dictionary can-or needs to-avoid demarcating a discipline. 4 Yet like many other scientists, every now and then epidemiologists engage in boundary-making endeavors and disciplinary demarcation. And then, as usual in other disciplines, epidemiologists assert or reclaim contested epistemic authority and may claim jurisdiction over areas of public health, medicine, statistics, or science. These efforts evolved in the course of the twentieth century while epidemiology developed as a very diverse, eclectic- and foremost, integrative-field of practice and academic discipline. -l2 And so will they evolve as the societies of the twenty-first century continue developing There is nothing wrong with that, it is the natural thing Is this dictionary an epistemic space? Well, of course it is, in the broadest sense: a space of knowledge. Does it belong to an epistemic community or to more than one? Both answers are true. It belongs to one very diverse community of knowledge-epidemiologists around the globe. And to a lesser but no less impor tant extent, the dictionary pertains also to the many communities of knowledge that interact and cooperate with epidemiology, or with which epidemiology cooperates, or that simply use epidemiological reasoning, knowledge, methods, or techniques. No matter how many mistakes we may have made(eventually, they are all m responsibility), I would like to think that in making this new edition we again practiced a high level of scientific and intellectual rigor in two opposite and omplementary directions: (1) in selecting and defining terms that are at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological core of epidemiology, and (2)in selecting and defining terms that are near or within disciplines with which epidemiology maintains vital interactions-vital for epidemiology, the other disciplines, science, and society These I take to be facts: today research methods with strong epidemiological roots and properties are fruitfully applied"within"and"outside"epidemiology A positive blurring of the boundaries of epidemiological research methods occurred in the last decades of the last century: e. g, the integration of population thinking and group comparison into clinical and public health research. 10 The expansion of this influence toward other research areas remains a significant-and in my view highly attractive-challenge for many scientists. Such an expansion of influence will not be identical to what occurred via clinical epidemiology and, later, evidence-based medicine and, today evidence-based health care The nature of the hypotheses at stake is often quite different in clinical medicine

and currently work or have professional experience as an epidemiologist [you may also have professional experience in other fi elds],” 27% answered “While my main job is not as an epidemiologist, I often use epidemiologic knowledge, methods or reasoning in my work,” 2% selected “I have little to no training in epidemiology and I seldom or never use it in my work [your contribution is nevertheless welcomed],” and 4% “Other.” These data provide a factual background for the next paragraphs. Is this dictionary an attempt to demarcate epidemiology neatly? I don’t think so. Or I’d rather think it is not, to the extent that a dictionary can—or needs to—avoid demarcating a discipline.4 Yet like many other scientists, every now and then epidemiologists engage in boundary-making endeavors and disciplinary demarcation. And then, as usual in other disciplines, epidemiologists assert or reclaim contested epistemic authority and may claim jurisdiction over areas of public health, medicine, statistics, or science. These efforts evolved in the course of the twentieth century while epidemiology developed as a very diverse, eclectic— and foremost, integrative—fi eld of practice and academic discipline.4–12 And so will they evolve as the societies of the twenty-fi rst century continue developing. There is nothing wrong with that, it is the natural thing. Is this dictionary an epistemic space? Well, of course it is, in the broadest sense: a space of knowledge. Does it belong to an epistemic community or to more than one? Both answers are true. It belongs to one very diverse community of knowledge—epidemiologists around the globe. And to a lesser but no less important extent, the dictionary pertains also to the many communities of knowledge that interact and cooperate with epidemiology, or with which epidemiology cooperates, or that simply use epidemiological reasoning, knowledge, methods, or techniques. No matter how many mistakes we may have made (eventually, they are all my responsibility), I would like to think that in making this new edition we again practiced a high level of scientifi c and intellectual rigor in two opposite and complementary directions: (1) in selecting and defi ning terms that are at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological core of epidemiology, and (2) in selecting and defi ning terms that are near or within disciplines with which epidemiology maintains vital interactions—vital for epidemiology, the other disciplines, science, and society. These I take to be facts: today research methods with strong epidemiological roots and properties are fruitfully applied “within” and “outside” epidemiology. A positive blurring of the boundaries of epidemiological research methods occurred in the last decades of the last century; e.g., the integration of population thinking and group comparison into clinical and public health research.10 The expansion of this infl uence toward other research areas remains a signifi cant—and in my view highly attractive—challenge for many scientists. Such an expansion of infl uence will not be identical to what occurred via clinical epidemiology and, later, evidence-based medicine and, today, evidence-based health care. The nature of the hypotheses at stake is often quite different in clinical medicine xi Preface