On 25-06-18 14:47, Philippe Ameline wrote:
Successfully using machine learning demands a prior culture of data
quality and information awareness.
Dear Philippe, I read your document later.
I have to disagree with the word "prior".
It makes it sound like, is has gone wrong long time ago, and
On 25-06-18 12:31, Thomas Beale wrote:
On 25/06/2018 11:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.
92% would be a disaster in healthcare ...
74% is even worse.
My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out
manually for
Largely I agree with Bert.
Medicine is an art for 80% and science for 20%
What medical data is recorded in most cases by GP’s is so scanty that AI is not
possible.
Collecting data over long periods of time might help.
Most IT-systems can not store all the epistemology that is needed for AI, at
On 25-06-18 12:44, Anastasiou A. wrote:
The time scales for doing this would be enormous. We can probably work out a
lower limit by looking at the lifecycle of archetypes
in the current CKM.
Thanks, for your answer, I agree with you and others, and already wrote
that, that an EHR will not be
Hello Bert and all
> I wonder if besides that approach an approach of archetypes growing in the
> wild could be of use. They could be used beside the predefined archetypes.
I don't think that enabling people to create local fragmented subsets of
information is a step in the right direction. We
Dear Bert and all
> I wonder, Is OpenEhr usable for recognizing pattern in diseases over
> Machine Learning, isn't behind every diagnosis a small cloud of
> archetypes which forms a pattern? The features of recognizing/learning
> should not be found in archetypes ID's, although, that can help
On 25-06-18 12:40, GF wrote:
Providing health and care is part science and for a large part an art.
Meaning that humans are needed.
Artificial Intelligence is a nice scientific hyped topic and nothing more.
That is not to say that AI might play a role and can be of use.
It needs to be properly
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:47:07PM +0200, Philippe Ameline wrote:
> A friend of mine recently published a paper, after studying a group of
> GPs located in the South of France. He found out that the diagnosis is
> not reported in observations in more than one encounter out of two.
That's because
On 25-06-18 14:56, Anastasiou A. wrote:
Once you have this minimal dataset discovered, THEN you could compose the
template or automatically create the archetypes.
And yes, this CAN be done today, definitely.
There is an understandable mindset which aspires to work with a
standard-set of
Providing health and care is part science and for a large part an art.
Meaning that humans are needed.
Artificial Intelligence is a nice scientific hyped topic and nothing more.
That is not to say that AI might play a role and can be of use.
It needs to be properly designed, engineered and not
On 25-06-18 12:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
Hope this helps,
Not really Stefan, but thanks for trying.
___
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Excellent observations!!!
Carol
El 25-06-2018, a las 07:30, Bert Verhees escribió:
On 25-06-18 12:44, Anastasiou A. wrote:
The time scales for doing this would be enormous. We can probably work out a
lower limit by looking at the lifecycle of archetypes
in the current CKM.
Thanks, for your
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:31:27AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
> > 82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.
>
> 92% would be a disaster in healthcare ...
It much depends. In typical care "92%" (of what ?) can be an
extremely brilliant result far beyond anything available
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Bert Verhees wrote:
> Allthough, there are some patient-conditions which are very typical for a
> disease, mostly this is not the case.
> For example, many infection-diseases have fever as a symptom, and one person
> gets pain in his back, and the other
Have anyone tried AQL adapter to pandas(python data analysis package
for machine learning and statistics)?
Shinji
2018-06-24 1:11 GMT+09:00 Bert Verhees :
> Today my wife showed me Plantnet.
>
> https://plantnet.org/en/
>
> It recognizes over 6000 plants from showing a flower or a leaf to your
>
Hello Bert and all
I am a little bit "worried" with "micro-archetypes" the way you describe them.
I think that what you are probably referring to is "Disease Specific
Templates", which I really hope is what we are all working towards :)
So, archetypes do indeed describe one conceptual
On 25-06-18 16:51, Anastasiou A. wrote:
Hello Bert and all
I wonder if besides that approach an approach of archetypes growing in the wild
could be of use. They could be used beside the predefined archetypes.
I don't think that enabling people to create local fragmented subsets of
It is a truth that, in the case of GP’s, almost always they deal with
Complaints, Tentative diagnosis or estimation of the Seriousness (good/bad
feeling), some trial Therapies and some addition investigations/tests, plus
finally some time to observe the evolution of the complaints over time;
One needs patters that document the documentation process in general for
Medical Statements, Evaluations, Orders, Actions
Patterns to Collect Complaints
Patterns to Collect Observations by tractus
Patterns to collect complaint specific data
Patterns to collect Diagnosis specific data
Patterns to
> Therefore I conclude for myself that I will not trust (and recommend to
> trust) automatically found archetypes, because you can not derive
> reliable conclusions from them at a defined level of reliability.
Stefan, I give a short reply, I have already given much input in this
discussion and
82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.
74% is even worse.
My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out
manually for some years to come.
Hope this helps,
Stefan
Stefan Sauermann
Program Director
Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) ->
Medical
On 25/06/2018 11:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.
92% would be a disaster in healthcare ...
74% is even worse.
My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out
manually for some years to come.
I am slightly more
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:21:26PM +0200, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
> My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out manually
> for some years to come.
Not in visual classification of dermatological health concerns.
Or areas of radiological diagnostics.
Karsten Hilbert
--
23 matches
Mail list logo
