Difference between revisions of "Logic of medical language"

----Unlike formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and computer programming – characterized by artificial systems of signs governed by strict syntactic and semantic rules – most scientific languages evolve as an extension of natural language, enriching it with a set of technical terms. Medical language falls into this intermediate category: it arises from the expansion of everyday language by incorporating specific terminologies such as "neuropathic pain," "Temporomandibular Disorders," "demyelination," "allodynia," etc. This evolution does not involve the adoption of syntax or semantics distinct from those of the natural language from which it derives. Take, for example, the term "disease" in the context of patient Mary Poppins: a key word in medicine, essential for nosology, research, and clinical practice. Although it represents a fundamental concept in the field, its definition remains remarkably vague and not fully outlined. This ambiguity underscores the intrinsic complexity of medical language, which, despite being enriched with technical terminology, maintains the flexible and sometimes indeterminate characteristics of the natural language from which it originates.

This reflection leads to deep discussions on the dynamic nature of health and disease, proposing that disease should not be seen simply as an instantaneous state or a static condition, but as an evolutionary process, influenced by temporal factors and the interaction between different biological and pathological systems within the organism. This perspective requires a more sophisticated and probably quantitative interpretation of health, taking into account the temporal variations and dynamics between various biological and pathological systems.

----<blockquote>The use of the term "language without semantics," treated as if it were irrelevant or devoid of consequences, and its derivatives share the same lack of semantic clarity. This statement underscores a deep criticism of the assumption that language can exist in a purely structural or formal form, lacking semantic content that defines its meaning. In this way, the essential interdependence between semantics and language for understanding and effective communication is highlighted.''<ref>{{cita libro

*is the patient Mary Poppins sick, or is the chewing System damaged?

* Is it instead a 'System' disease considering the masticatory System in its entirety consisting of subsets such as receptors, peripheral and central nervous tissue, maxillary bones, teeth, tongue, skin, etc.,?

*Or, is it an 'organ' disease involving in this specific case the temporomandibular joint (TMJ)?

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio.jpg|'''Figure 1:''' Patient reporting 'orofacial pain' in the right hemilateral face

File:Spasmo emimasticatorio ATM.jpg|'''Figure 2:''' Patient’s TMJ stratigraphy showing signs of condylar flattening and osteophyte

File:Atm1 sclerodermia.jpg|'''Figure 3:''' Computed tomography of the TMJ which confirms the stratigraphy in figure 2

==What does a medical term mean==

 

The Cambridge Dictionary says that "''The meaning of something is what it expresses or represents''"<ref>[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meaning Cambridge Dictionary online]</ref>. As simple as it may seem, the notion of "meaning" is rather generic and vague; there is still no commonly accepted answer to the question 'what does "meaning" mean?' Controversial theories of meaning have been advanced, and each has its advantages and shortcomings<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>.  

 

Such expressions do not derive their meaning from representing something in the world out there, but how they relate to other terms within one’s world or context.

The meaning of ''pain'' for Mary Poppins is concerning what it can mean to her, to her conscience, and not about the external world: actually, asking the patient to attribute a numerical value to his pain, say from 0 to 10, makes no sense, has no meaning, because there isn't any internal normalizing reference to one's world or context. <br>

The dentist will do the same, based on his/her context consisting mainly of teeth, temporomandibular joint, masticatory muscles, occlusion etc.

Concepts should not be neglected when it comes to '<nowiki/>'''differential diagnosis'''', because they could be sources of clinical errors. For this reason, we should reflect on the modern philosophy of 'Meaning', which began with Gottlob Frege<ref>[[:wikipedia:Gottlob_Frege|Wikipedia entry]]</ref>, as a compound of "extension" and "intention" of a term that expresses a concept.

The concept has its '''extension''' (it includes all beings with the same quality) and 'understanding' (a complex of markers referred to the idea). For example, the concept of ''pain'' refers to many human beings, but it is more generic (great extension, but little understanding). If we consider the pain in patients who receive, for example, dental implants, in patients with ongoing inflammatory dental pulpitis and patients with neuropathic pain (atypical odontalgia)<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref> we'll have:

 

 

The '''intension''' of a concept, on the other hand, is a set of aspects that distinguish it from the others. These are the characteristics that differentiate the generic term of "pain", which by articulating the intension of a concept automatically reduces its extension. Obviously, though, various generality scales can descend from a concept depending on which aspect of its intension is articulated. That is why we could conceptually distinguish pain in the TMJ from neuropathic pain.

We can conveniently say, therefore, that the meaning of a term ''<math>\mathrm{S}</math>'' with respect to a particular language <math>\mathrm{l}</math> is an ordered couple, consisting of extension and intension, in a world that we will now call ‘context’.  

Precisely with reference to the '''context''' we must point out that:

#In the dental ‘context’, the term ''pain in the right half face'' represents a relatively large extension (so that it can be classified in an area that includes the ‘TMDs’) and an intension composed of a series of clinical characteristics perhaps supported by a series of instrumental radiological investigations, EMG, axiographic etc.

#In the neurological ‘context’, however, the term ''pain in the right half face'' represents a relatively wide ‘_nOP’ extension and an intension composed of a series of clinical features, perhaps supported by a series of instrumental radiological investigations, EMG, somatosensory evoked potentials, etc.

This brief but essential argument allows us to ascertain how the linguistic expression of a medical language is vulnerable for a series of reasons; among these, please note semantic incompleteness, as well as how a meaning can be so different in different contexts that the terms ‘_nOP’ or ' TMDs' become ambiguous with these premises<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>.

As said, beyond the language used, the meaning of a medical term also depends on the contexts from which it originates, and this can generate ‘ambiguity’ or ‘polysemy’ of the terms. A term is called ambiguous or polysemic if it has more than one meaning. Ambiguity and vagueness have been the subject of considerable attention in linguistics and philosophy<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>; but despite the significant detrimental effect of ambiguity and vagueness on adherence to and implementation of the Clinical Pratice Guideline (CPG)<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>, these concepts have not been explored and differentiated yet in a medical context.

Doctors' interpretation of vague terms varies greatly<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>, leading to a reduced grip and q greater practice variation from CPGs. Ambiguity is classified into syntactic, semantic and pragmatic types<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>.

 

Let's spend a minute trying to describe this interesting topic of '''encrypted machine language''' from which the following chapters will be articulated.

Orofacial pain does not have a meaning in its most genuine lexical form, but rather in what it means in the context in which it exists: a whole series of domains referred to and generated by it such as clinical signs, related symptoms and interactions with other neuromotor, trigeminal, dental districts, etc. ''This machine language does not correspond to verbal language, but to an encrypted language built on its own alphabet'', that generates the message to be converted into verbal (natural) language. Now the problem shifts to the ''language logic used to decrypt the code''. In order to describe this concept in an understandable way, let’s contemplate a series of examples.  

We are supposing that the unfortunate Mary Poppins is suffering from ‘orofacial pain’, and she is representing the following to the healthcare professionals to whom she relates:

{{q2|<!--93-->Doc, 10 years ago I started with a widespread discomfort in the jaw, including episodes of bruxism; these worsened so much that I was accusing ‘diffuse facial pain’, in particular in the area of the right ‘TMJ’ with noises in the movements mandibular.<br><!--94-->During this period, ‘vesicular lesions’ formed on my skin, which were more evident in the right half of my face.<br>In this period, however, the pain became more intense and intermittent|}}

The healthcare worker, who may be a dermatologist, a dentist or a neurologist, picks up some verbal messages in Mary Poppins’ dialogue, such as ‘diffuse facial pain’ or ‘TMJ’ or ‘vescicular lesion’, and establishes a series of hypothetical diagnostic conclusions that have nothing to do with the encrypted language.

Here, however, we should abandon a little the acquired patterns and opinions to better follow the concept of ‘encrypted language’. Let's suppose, therefore, that the System is generating and sending the following encrypted message, for instance: '''Ephaptic'''.  

Now, what has ‘Ephaptic’ to do with _nOP or TMDs?  

Nothing and everything, as we will better verify at the end of the chapters about the logic of medical language; but by now we will dedicate some time to the concepts of ''encryption'' and ''decryption''. We have perhaps heard about them in spy movies or in information security, but they are important in medicine too, you'll see.

Let us continue with our example:

Let us take a common encryption and decryption platform. In the following example we will report the results of an Italian platform but we can choose any platform because the results conceptually do not change:

You type your message in plain text, the machine converts it into something unreadable, but anyone knowing the "code" will be able to understand it.  

This message from the Central Nervous System must first be transduced into verbal language, to allow the patient to give meaning to the linguistic expression and the doctor to interpret the verbal message. In this way, however, the machine message is polluted by the linguistic expression: both by the patient, who is unable to convert the encrypted message with the exact meaning (epistemic vagueness), and by the doctor, because he/she is conditioned by the specific context of his/her specialization.

 

 

Very often the message remains encrypted at least until the system is damaged to such an extent that clinical signs and symptoms emerge so striking that, obviously, they facilitate the diagnosis.

 

Understanding how the encryption works is quite simple (go to decryption platform chooses and to try it out):

 

#choose an encryption key among those selected;

 

 

 

 

For example, if we insert the word ‘Ephaptic’ in the platform encryption system, we will have an encrypted code in the three different contexts (patient, dentist and neurologist) which correspond to the three different algorithmic keys indicated by the  program, for instance: the A key corresponds to the patient's algorithm, the B key to the dental context and the C key to the neurological context.