Confronted with the fact that (multiple) prognoses only create an illusion of knowledge instead of scientific knowledge, scientists might answer that they are using the best instruments available.
The inconsiderate use of (multiple) prognoses about the future – although sometimes explicitly stating the overall caveat of ceteris paribus or rebus sic stantibus – is a root-cause of a strong and, especially in the case of scenarios camouflaged as multiple prognoses, very convincing illusion of knowledge.
The concepts and rules for a scientific enquiry into the future developed in this article can help to clearly differentiate between multiple prognoses and scenarios, and to evaluate scenarios by scientific means.
Would-be scenarios in the form of multiple prognoses are in turn assumed to be very useful to make insecure strategic situations more secure as they are meant to represent justifiable knowledge.
Scenarios are illustrations about alternative possible futures but the more scientific knowledge they create, the more they transform into multiple prognoses, the less they are useful as an instrument to scientifically expose the future.
The biggest potential from this set of rules, although not exhaustive and illustrated, lays in its capability to distinguish between good and bad scenarios, between real alternative thought experiments and multiple prognoses.
They suggest that this discrepancy may be due to omissions in search terms that we used and secondly that our strategy of only including studies in which there was a direct comparison between people earlier and later in illness course is flawed because the latter group will include people who have poor prognosis or treatment resistance and the former with multiple prognoses.
We used only datasets in which a healthy tissue was compared to the disease tissue (i.e., datasets with multiple prognosis-based cohorts were excluded).
Enrichment of multiple poor prognosis genetic alterations in ccB samples indicated that several events may be required to establish this aggressive phenotype, catalysed in some tumours by chromosomal instability.
Building off of the SLAMS approach, Wolfer et al. [ 48] searched for potential regulators of multiple poor prognosis signatures using the MCF7 breast cancer cell line as a testing platform.
GEP70 has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a statistically superior, standardized method of personalized multiple myeloma prognosis and molecular characterization, with less subjectivity than conventional methods such as FISH and cytogenetics.
