Rationalism, Empiricism, and Evidence-Based Medicine: A Call for a New Galenic Synthesis

Biological Reductionism as an Obstacle to the Advancement of the Biopsychosocial Concept of Mental Disorders

The substantial progress in neurobiological technologies has narrowed the horizons of many psychiatrists, ultimately leading them to focus exclusively on biomedical research, primarily aimed at studying the biological basis of mental illnesses. This has led to an unjustified dominance of the biomedical paradigm in understanding the nature of mental disorders, while virtually ignoring the study of other components of the disease related to the psychosocial maladjustment of patients. This trend, largely associated with advancements in neuroscience employing neuroimaging techniques to study the brain's activity as a biophysical object, has contributed to the development of such innovative field as evidence-based medicine. The methods of evidence-based medicine are seen as adequate in terms of determining the effectiveness of therapy for predominantly biologically determined components of mental illness (including the selection of medications) and only partially for psychological interventions. However, it seems that the predominant use of evidence-based medicine principles is insufficient for a holistic diagnostic approach, which includes a multilevel (diversified) representation of the criteria of effectiveness for pharmacological and psychological interventions. In this regard, it is promising to establish a scientifically and clinically productive combination of, on the one hand, the evidence-based concept of effectiveness assessments based on high-quality randomized scientific studies, and on the other, expert opinions of highly qualified scientific specialists, as well as practicing physicians with their personal professional experience in individualized therapy. This makes it reasonable to develop a personality-oriented personalized psychiatry, based on a biopsychosocial understanding of the nature of mental disorders, their holistic assessment, and the development of comprehensive therapeutic measures.

Avicenna and clinical experiences in Canon of Medicine

Avicenna used his medical knowledge and experience of scientists from different nations to create a new style in medicine. For this reason, his textbook, Canon of Medicine, has been considered a medical reference in all universities worldwide for centuries. In this article, some valuable and interesting diagnostic and therapeutic clinical experiences mentioned in the Canon of Medicine are described in five sections. This research was conducted to review Avicenna’s specific clinical observations and interventions in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases using the keywords “Avicenna” and “Canon of Medicine”. In this article, we presented several examples of diagnostic and therapeutic clinical experiences mentioned in the Canon of Medicine in 5 areas, including semiology, therapeutic strategy, urology, neurology, obstetrics, and gynecology. Canon of Medicine, as a complete medical series containing the medical experiences from different nations and Iranian medical scientists, has influenced the world’s medical knowledge for several centuries. Some of Avicenna’s clinical and experimental views can be useful from both a historical point of view and new research.

A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study dentinal microcracks

The purpose of this narrative review was to discuss the scientific milestones that led to the current understanding of the root dentinal microcrack phenomenon based on the interplay between the usage of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) as an analytical tool alongside a close-to-mouth experimental model. In 2009, reports on the development of dentinal microcracks in extracted teeth after root canal preparation triggered an awareness of the potential for vertical root fractures (VRFs) of endodontically treated teeth could be developed from defects created by the mechanical stress of nickel-titanium preparation systems on dentine. This assumption was taken for granted, even though no cause-effect relationship had been scientifically demonstrated. Since then, several studies using the sectioning method with extracted teeth have been published and the large discrepancy amongst their outcomes soon become evident. Moreover, the high frequency of reported dentinal microcracks largely contrasted with the clinical incidence of VRFs, raising doubts on their methodological reliability. Using micro-CT technology, it was demonstrated by several studies that, in extracted teeth, dentinal defects already existed before the endodontic procedures, indicating that the initial reports framed a non-existing cause-effect relationship between canal preparation and dentinal microcracks. Although these new findings contributed to a better comprehension of this phenomenon, the misconception that microcracks were the starting point for VRFs was only surpassed with a new in situ approach using fresh cadavers. Surprisingly, microcracks were not identified in sound teeth. As a conclusion, dentinal microcracks in extracted teeth can be considered a non-natural occurrence observed only in a laboratory set-up as a consequence of dehydration and storage conditions. Thus, dentinal microcracks shall not be considered as the starting point for VRFs as they do not manifest in non-extracted teeth. Identifying dentinal microcracks as a laboratory phenomenon highlights the impact of recent scientific developments to disclaim the clinical relevance of laboratory-obtained outcomes.

The Unexamined Calling

Philosophy and philosophical assumptions are crucial to our work as physicians and investigators; however, training in philosophy remains poorly represented among medical students and their educators. In this brief essay, I argue the case that philosophical assumptions concerning knowledge and the scientific method are relevant for medical practice and research, concluding with a call for greater attention to philosophy in pre-medical and medical education.