[To categories of discrepancy between clinical and postmortem diagnoses]

Area of Science:

• Pathology
• Medical Diagnosis

Background:

• The paper addresses the ongoing debate regarding the classification of discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses.
• It specifically examines the relevance of the 3-category system previously discussed by I. A. Kazantseva.

Discussion:

• The author argues that it is currently inappropriate to discard the established 3 categories of clinical-postmortem diagnosis discrepancies.
• This perspective aligns with the views of prominent pathologists in Saint Petersburg.

Key Insights:

• The established 3 categories for clinical-postmortem diagnosis discrepancies remain relevant and should not be abandoned.
• The paper supports the continued use of these classifications in medical practice.
• International data on hospital autopsy frequencies in Europe and the USA are presented.

Outlook:

• Further discussion is warranted on refining diagnostic discrepancy classifications.
• The paper implicitly advocates for the continued importance of autopsies in quality assessment.
• Consideration of existing frameworks like L. Goldman's classification is encouraged for analyzing ante- and postmortem diagnostic differences.