When examining the example of test result on the illustration offered below, we can note that
a lо of diagnoses offered in fig.10 correspond to the virtual picture of stomach disease (Fig.9). In the
given example, the diseases of alimentary canal offered in the list practically have an equally high
degree of probability. As during the examination of stomach a primary concentration of
“pathological” markers has been detected in the area of pyloric part with transfer to duodenum, we
have to choose from the offered list the diseases bearing the relation to indicated organs and
structures. That means, it can be one or several diagnoses from the group with the factor lower than
0,6 (if we will consider a concrete example), except of the diagnoses “gastroenteritis”, because the
small intestine is not shown in the given cartogram. To choose the diagnoses corresponding to the
reality, a differential analysis should be done with using not only of software but of the data of
physical examination, too; that all should be done on the ground of clinical manifestation of the
disease.
So, as a clinical manifestation of gastritis can be regarded, in a standard understanding,
moderate pains in epigastria arising mainly just after having meals and fading in due course or after
having taken antacids and on the contrary, the stomach ulcer is characterized by expressed pains on
an empty stomach mainly arising in the morning. As to the verification of diagnoses, there is an
indubitable fact, that besides of the confirming by the option “Entropy analyses” each of the
considered diagnoses must be confirmed by the data of common clinical examination methods, by
the fibrogastroscopy, in particular.” If there are no data of FGDS, the doctor can conduct a physical
examination with using of epigastric area palpation to reveal a pain syndrome and recommend an
additional examination, using the option “Examination” in the section “Epicrisis”.