Carcinoma de tiroides una verdadera pandemia?

El diagnóstico de cáncer de tiroides se ha incrementado y las posibilidades de detección de una enfermedad subclínica son altas, toda vez que disponemos de herramientas de detección más sensibles y de fácil acceso. Por ende, el clínico requiere conocer la historia natural del nódulo tiroideo y del carcinoma papilar de tiroides de bajo riesgo para brindar a su paciente el mejor tratamiento basado en la evidencia clínica. El objetivo de esta revision es reconocer los elementos clínicos que han condicionado el aumento inusitado de casos de cáncer de tiroides. Conclusión: El sobrediagnóstico del cáncer de tiroides es una realidad, que se posibilita por el uso extendido de biopsia por aspiración con aguja fina ((BACAF)) después de la detección de un nódulo tiroideo, en gran parte de manera incidental, sin acarrear la mayoría de las veces un mejor pronóstico después de su tratamiento.

Does uncertainty cause inertia in decision making? An experimental study of the role of regret aversion and indecisiveness

Previous research has shown that often there is clear inertia in individual decision making---that is, a tendency for decision makers to choose a status quo option. I conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate two potential determinants of inertia in uncertain environments: (i) regret aversion and (ii) ambiguity-driven indecisiveness. I use a between-subjects design with varying conditions to identify the effects of these two mechanisms on choice behavior. In each condition, participants choose between two simple real gambles, one of which is the status quo option. I find that inertia is quite large and that both mechanisms are equally important.

Risk, ambiguity, and diversification

Attitudes toward risk influence the decision to diversify among uncertain options. Yet, because in most situations the options are ambiguous, attitudes toward ambiguity may also play an important role. I conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate the effect of ambiguity on the decision to diversify. I find that diversification is more prevalent and more persistent under ambiguity than under risk. Moreover, excess diversification under ambiguity is driven by participants who stick with a status quo gamble when diversification among gambles is not feasible. This behavioral pattern cannot be accommodated by major theories of choice under ambiguity.