Like most websites The Pathologist uses cookies. In order to deliver a personalized, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. Learn more.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Outside the Lab Profession, Training and education

Pathophysiology: Top-Down or Bottom-Up?

In many European countries, the tradition of teaching pathophysiology as a standalone subject can be traced back to Rudolf Virchow. However, elsewhere, pathophysiology is taught as an integral part of pathology. Nikola Tesla once said, “Nature may reach the same result in many ways” – a statement that can equally be applied to the teaching and learning of pathophysiology. Even when pathophysiology is studied in different ways or under different names (such as clinical physiology or pathobiology), the central idea and contents of integrative pathophysiology follow Virchow’s postulate across all institutions. In his words, “The standpoint, which we aim to abide, is a scientific one. Clinical medicine as applied theoretical discipline, theoretical medicine as pathological physiology is the ideal, which we shall strive to realize as far as it is in our power.”

Differences in academic approaches across countries have led to a geographic dichotomy (see Figure 1). Institutions with a top-down approach place more emphasis on basic sciences expertise and have mostly kept the term “pathophysiology” (or equivalent), whereas those with a bottom-up strategy emphasize clinical expertise and more closely align with nosology, often studied within various branches of medicine. In the US, pathophysiology is the majority view – several medical schools even have compulsory pathophysiology courses.

Figure 1. Top-down versus bottom-up approaches to pathophysiology education.

When examining the relationship between nosology and general pathophysiology, the balanced weight of scientific expertise is demonstrated by matrix-driven algorithmic analysis/resynthesis and etiopathogenetic clusters (EPCs), which were developed by the Zagreb School of Pathophysiology (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The relationship between pathophysiology and nosology.

William Osler critically noted that, “if it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science, not an art.” Osler aligned more closely to clinical expertise and nosology – a stark contrast to Virchow’s scientific enthusiasm for pathophysiology in the 19th century.

Receive content, products, events as well as relevant industry updates from The Pathologist and its sponsors.
Stay up to date with our other newsletters and sponsors information, tailored specifically to the fields you are interested in

When you click “Subscribe” we will email you a link, which you must click to verify the email address above and activate your subscription. If you do not receive this email, please contact us at [email protected].
If you wish to unsubscribe, you can update your preferences at any point.

About the Author
Zdenko Kovač

Retired Professor of Pathophysiology and Internist at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine and Founder and Principal Advisor of the Dubrovnik Summer School of Pathophysiology, Centre for Advanced Academic Studies, Croatia.

Register to The Pathologist

Register to access our FREE online portfolio, request the magazine in print and manage your preferences.

You will benefit from:
  • Unlimited access to ALL articles
  • News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
  • Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Pathologist magazine