Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (10 of 16) Show all publications
Jerkert, J. (2016). peer review. Nationalencyklopedin
Open this publication in new window or tab >>peer review
2016 (Swedish)Other (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

Artikel för Nationalencyklopedin som förklarar vad peer review är och hur det fungerar.

Place, publisher, year, pages
Nationalencyklopedin, 2016. p. 1
Keywords
peer review, vetenskaplig publicering, vetenskapliga tidskrifter
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-183775 (URN)
Note

QC 20160323

Available from: 2016-03-18 Created: 2016-03-18 Last updated: 2016-03-23Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2015). Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 36(6), 425-437
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment
2015 (English)In: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, ISSN 1386-7415, E-ISSN 1573-0980, Vol. 36, no 6, p. 425-437Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Traditionally, mechanistic reasoning has been assigned a negligible role in standard EBM (evidence-based medicine) literature, although some recent authors have argued for an upgrading. Even so, mechanistic reasoning that has received attention has almost exclusively been positive – both in an epistemic sense of claiming that there is a mechanistic chain and in a health-related sense of there being claimed benefits for the patient. Negative mechanistic reasoning has been neglected, both in the epistemic and in the health-related sense. I distinguish three main types of negative mechanistic reasoning and subsume them under a new definition of mechanistic reasoning in the context of assessing medical interventions. This definition is wider than a previous suggestion in the literature. Each negative type corresponds to a range of evidential strengths, and it is argued that there are differences with respect to the typical evidential strengths. The variety of negative mechanistic reasoning should be acknowledged in EBM, and presents a serious challenge to proponents of so-called medical hierarchies of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2015
Keywords
mechanistic reasoning, evidence-based medicine, hierarchy of evidence
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-163867 (URN)10.1007/s11017-015-9348-2 (DOI)000365783100004 ()2-s2.0-84948386104 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20151211

Available from: 2015-04-13 Created: 2015-04-13 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2015). Philosophical Issues in Medical Intervention Research. (Licentiate dissertation). Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Philosophical Issues in Medical Intervention Research
2015 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The thesis consists of an introduction and two papers. In the introduction a brief historical survey of empirical investigations into the effectiveness of medicinal interventions is given. Also, the main ideas of the EBM (evidence-based medicine) movement are presented. Both included papers can be viewed as investigations into the reasonableness of EBM and its hierarchies of evidence.

Paper I: Typically, in a clinical trial patients with specified symptoms are given either of two or more predetermined treatments. Health endpoints in these groups are then compared using statistical methods. Concerns have been raised, not least from adherents of so-called alternative medicine, that clinical trials do not offer reliable evidence for some types of treatment, in particular for highly individualized treatments, for example traditional homeopathy. It is argued that such concerns are unfounded. There are two minimal conditions related to the nature of the treatments that must be fulfilled for evaluability in a clinical trial, namely (1) the proper distinction of the two treatment groups and (2) the elimination of confounding variables or variations. These are delineated, and a few misunderstandings are corrected. It is concluded that the conditions do not preclude the testing of alternative medicine, whether individualized or not.

Paper II: Traditionally, mechanistic reasoning has been assigned a negligible role in standard EBM literature, although some recent authors have argued for an upgrading. Even so, mechanistic reasoning that has received attention has almost exclusively been positive -- both in an epistemic sense of claiming that there is a mechanistic chain and in a health-related sense of there being claimed benefits for the patient. Negative mechanistic reasoning has been neglected, both in the epistemic and in the health-related sense. I distinguish three main types of negative mechanistic reasoning and subsume them under a new definition of mechanistic reasoning in the context of assessing medical interventions. Although this definition is wider than a previous suggestion in the literature, there are still other instances of reasoning that concern mechanisms but do not (and should not) count as mechanistic reasoning. One of the three distinguished types, which is negative only in the health-related sense, has a corresponding positive counterpart, whereas the other two, which are epistemically negative, do not have such counterparts, at least not that are particularly interesting as evidence. Accounting for negative mechanistic reasoning in EBM is therefore partly different from accounting for positive mechanistic reasoning. Each negative type corresponds to a range of evidential strengths, and it is argued that there are differences with respect to the typical strengths. The variety of negative mechanistic reasoning should be acknowledged in EBM, and presents a serious challenge to proponents of so-called medical hierarchies of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, 2015. p. 42
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 53
Keywords
scientific method, study design, methodology, alternative medicine, medical research, individualized treatments, eligibility, confounders, evidence, evidence-based medicine, mechanistic reasoning, hierarchy of evidence
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-163872 (URN)978-91-7595-423-3 (ISBN)
Presentation
2015-04-28, Seminarierummet, Avd. för Filosofi, Brinellvägen 32, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20150413

Available from: 2015-04-13 Created: 2015-04-13 Last updated: 2015-04-13Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2014). Flum i riksdagen 2010-2014. SANS (3), 28-32
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Flum i riksdagen 2010-2014
2014 (Swedish)In: SANS, ISSN 2000-9690, no 3, p. 28-32Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lidingö: Sans media, 2014
Keywords
pseudovetenskap, riksdagsmotioner, alternativmedicin, chemtrails, strålning, elöverkänslighet
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-154219 (URN)
Note

QC 20150306

Available from: 2014-10-15 Created: 2014-10-15 Last updated: 2018-01-11Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2013). The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine [Review]. Theoria, 79(2), 180-186
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine
2013 (English)In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 79, no 2, p. 180-186Article, book review (Other academic) Published
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-122092 (URN)10.1111/theo.12002 (DOI)000317142300007 ()
Note

QC 20130514

Available from: 2013-05-14 Created: 2013-05-13 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2013). Why alternative medicine can be scientifically evaluated: Countering the evasions of pseudoscience. In: Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (Ed.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (pp. 305-320). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Why alternative medicine can be scientifically evaluated: Countering the evasions of pseudoscience
2013 (English)In: Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem / [ed] Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 305-320Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Typically, in a clinical trial patients with specified symptoms are given either of two predetermined treatments. Health endpoints in the two groups are then compared using statistical methods. Concerns have been raised, not least from adherents of so-called alternative medicine, that clinical trials do not offer reliable evidence for some types of treatment, in particular for highly individualized treatments, for example traditional homeopathy. It is argued that such concerns are unfounded. There are two minimal conditions related to the nature of the treatments that must be fulfilled for eligibility to a clinical trial, namely (1) the proper distinction of the two treatment groups and (2) the elimination of confounding variables or variations. These are delineated, and a few misunderstandings are corrected. It is concluded that the conditions do not preclude the testing of alternative medicine, whether individualized or not.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-87649 (URN)9780226051796 (ISBN)9780226051963 (ISBN)
Note

QC 20131104

Available from: 2012-02-14 Created: 2012-02-14 Last updated: 2015-04-13Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2012). Från ad hoc till önsketänkande: En guide till pseudovetenskapens värld (1ed.). Lidingö: Fri Tanke
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Från ad hoc till önsketänkande: En guide till pseudovetenskapens värld
2012 (Swedish)Book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lidingö: Fri Tanke, 2012. p. 261 Edition: 1
Keywords
pseudovetenskap
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-104545 (URN)978-91-86061-52-4 (ISBN)
Note

QC 20130110

Available from: 2012-11-05 Created: 2012-11-05 Last updated: 2013-01-10Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2012). Science in the Age of Computer Simulation, by Eric Winsberg [Review]. Theoria, 78(2), 168-175
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Science in the Age of Computer Simulation, by Eric Winsberg
2012 (English)In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 78, no 2, p. 168-175Article, book review (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2012
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-95090 (URN)10.1111/j.1755-2567.2012.01126.x (DOI)000302795200006 ()
Note

QC 20120521.  Review of 'Science in the Age of Computer Simulation' by Eric Winsberg

Available from: 2012-05-21 Created: 2012-05-14 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2011). Varför åberopar man inte det övernaturliga i vetenskapen?. Filosofisk Tidskrift (4), 41-49
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Varför åberopar man inte det övernaturliga i vetenskapen?
2011 (Swedish)In: Filosofisk Tidskrift, ISSN 0348-7482, no 4, p. 41-49Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Thales, 2011
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-104544 (URN)
Note

QC 20130507

Available from: 2012-11-05 Created: 2012-11-05 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Jerkert, J. (2010). Review of Enharmonic Instruments and Music 1470–1900 by Patrizio Barbieri [Review]. Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning, 92, 121-123
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Review of Enharmonic Instruments and Music 1470–1900 by Patrizio Barbieri
2010 (Swedish)In: Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning, ISSN 0081-9816, Vol. 92, p. 121-123Article, book review (Other academic) Published
National Category
Musicology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-87764 (URN)
Note

QC 20120810

Available from: 2012-02-14 Created: 2012-02-14 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-9373-3067

Search in DiVA

Show all publications