Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials—substantially more than hospitals collect—thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.
Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study. Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient's stage of disease. Patients' ages may also affect a treatment's efficacy.
It can be inferred from the passage that a study limited to patients like those mentioned in the highlighted text would have which of the following advantages over the kind of study proposed by Frazier and Mosteller?
It would yield more data and its findings would be more accurate.
It would cost less in the long term, though it would be more expensive in its initial stages.
It would limit the number of variables researchers would need to consider when evaluating the treatment under study.
It would help researchers to identify subgroups of patients with secondary conditions that might also be treatable.
It would enable researchers to assess the value of an experimental treatment for the average patient.
题目分析:
文章推断题:限制高亮里提到的病人数量的研究,比FM提议的研究有何优点?
选项分析:
A选项:它会产生更多数据,结论会更准确:这个实验限制了病人数量,所以并不会产生更多数据。
B选项:长期来看它成本更低,尽管在初始阶段会比较贵:文章没有提成本问题。
C选项:正确。它会限制研究员需要评估的变量。
D选项:它会帮助研究员辨别需要被诊治的亚群体:限制数量并不会帮助研究员辨认亚群体。
E选项:它帮助研究员评估 这个实验针对普遍病人的价值:限制数量会是研究结果有局限性,所以它针对的是特定群体,而不是“average”。
rc
推断题 It can be inferred ;注意审题;不要选重词的,慎重。
错选,是因为定位错了,把这句也连着看了A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions.其实无关的。。。又看到d中的secondary conditions 就选了
又犯了这个错误,注意边读边思考不要侥幸心理觉得词都match了就对。。。好好读选项,其实d是在画线在后面在后面的内容,用于混淆和作为陷阱
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论