Talk:Zebra (medicine)

this
this article is textually the same as http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Zebra-(medical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.178.148 (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true indeed. :-) But as they say on their page: The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL. -- Momotaro (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the part under the statement "Three master diagnosticians have noted, however..." to be nothing more than a ridiculously pretentious re-statement of a simple statistical principle. By analogy: if you have been struck by a moving vehicle, the fact that only 1 in 10,000 are likely to be struck by a moving vehicle is pretty much irrelevant. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
 * And yet you would be surprised how infrequently most physicians think this way, especially in the era of practice guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.90.244 (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about diagnosis. Is someone seriously suggesting that if the patient has clearly been hit by a large object it is irrelevant whether he lives on a busy road or lives miles from any road? Those criteria are reflected in statistics, and they ARE relevant! 78.147.18.59 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Zebra medicine image
What would the leading image for zebra medicine term be, if we could get one? A picture of a literal zebra probably would be not appropriate. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've seen ribbons with zebra pattern. Like an awareness ribbons. Nakonana (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually a thing: Zebra print ribbon. Nakonana (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Quote at end of Introduction
The statement that "calculations of probability have no meaning" and more egregiously "Whether it is rare or common does not change the odds in a single patient" are quite wrong. The quote is just a Base rate fallacy. Should this at least be mentioned next to the quote? I.Elgamal (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The quote is wrong.
I have it second hand from someone who was a med student under Dr Theodore Woodward at Johns Hopkins, and I'm still looking for the attributed version, but the correct original quote zie posted is within 5% of:

"When you hear hoofbeats behind you on Greene St, you expect horses, not zebras... but a zebra it may well be."

The street address of Johns Hopkins is #10 Greene St, Googlemaps tells me.

Clearly that's not enough attribution to put the quote *in* the article, but since Dr Woodward is being cited to have said *the exact opposite thing from what he's quoted as having said* -- to wit: that you should *think about zebras*, not dismiss them -- and since we are cited as many people's source for this, we might perhaps reconsider how this is written and/or whether we should include the current attribution? (I have the citation and I *will* find it, but this is front of mind just now and I didn't want to forget.) -- baylink@en.wp Baylink (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)