Comments on: Diagnostic test takedown by copyright bullies

By: What’s the Most Practical Brief Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment? | The Practical Psychosomaticist: James Amos, M.D.

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:02:36 +0000

[...] got this pingback recently about the Sweet 16, which you can read in its entirety at http://mindhacks.com/2011/12/29/diagnostic-test-takedown-by-copyright-bullies/. And another comment from Eric Widera is also very important, [...]

By: Anticreatividad | Julio César Penagos Corzo

Anticreatividad | Julio César Penagos Corzo — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:41:04 +0000

[...] Fuente: Mind Hacks [...]

By: Medical Copyright Trolling | Music, Medicine, and the Mind

Medical Copyright Trolling | Music, Medicine, and the Mind — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:54:32 +0000

[...] know, I think the Mind Hacks blog said it best: Cashing-in on a simple and now, clinically essential, bedside test that you’ve ignored for three [...]

By: Terry Heaton

Terry Heaton — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:22:16 +0000

This is just the beginning. The Great Horizontal is disrupting all institutions governed by protected knowledge. The interesting thing in this case — and what we’ll see more of downstream — is that “open” in terms of use by the medical community means “open” in terms of everybody else. The shift of authority from doctor to patient is surging forward, because “the needs of the patient are different than the needs of the doctor.” This new world demands different laws, especially in areas of copyright. Greed is the only thing at work here, and that won’t last long when patients who are increasingly organized and can talk to each other start protesting.

By: otte georges

otte georges — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:02:12 +0000

Although still many people regard the MMSE as a fast and handy screening test of dementia, it should be remembered that Folstein’s never devised their MMSE as such. In fact it is a very bad screening test due to its marked ceiling (and floor) effect being notoriously insensitive at the beginning of the syndrome. It was made as a follow up on cognitive involution in patients with already documented Alzheimer disease. Unfortunately the ease of use and wide dissemination by media and industry has promoted it to a “screening” test. This promotion is undeserved.

Dr. G. Otte, neurology

By: Clinical test copyright bullying legally dubious « Mind Hacks

Clinical test copyright bullying legally dubious « Mind Hacks — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:35:30 +0000

[...] Mind Hacks Neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain. « Diagnostic test takedown by copyright bullies [...]

By: mchankins

mchankins — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:54:35 +0000

We had a departmental email warning us about this in May. It wouldn’t be hard to develop an alternative that avoided ‘copying’ components of the MMSE and then make this freely available: the ‘payoff’ for the developers would be citations of the development paper.

Done properly it should be possible to improve on the MMSE (as the Sweet 16 appeared to do).

By: If this topic isn't covered in your newspaper this weekend, get a new newspaper | Neurobonkers.com

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:39:02 +0000

[...] test which is the “evaluation of choice for most general doctors” now requires a payment of $1.23 per copy which is likely to prevent it’s use in both [...]

By: amelie

amelie — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:03:10 +0000

This case is a bit more obvious of social justice. My coworker claims that hackers have made articles from PLoS One “freely available” in the name of social justice as well. Access to scientific information is tricky; if it is a matter of need, you’d think the government could strike a deal with the creators to make it somehow profitable for both parties.

By: The last few hours in links :) (December 29th, 2011 from 08:48 to 12:45) | PRCog's Gear Grindings

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:07:52 +0000