Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis

Mate Beštek mate.bestek at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 08:10:36 EDT 2015


Hi all,

such a paper would also be interesting to me and our MoH and NIPH...
I have to prepare something similar also for the EU JA Parent project so I
would be happy to cooperate on this article...


Regards

Mate

On 11 March 2015 at 11:55, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nystrom at liu.se> wrote:

> I might also be interested.
>
>         Regards
>         Mikael
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org]
> För Diego Boscá
> Skickat: den 11 mars 2015 11:36
> Till: For openEHR clinical discussions
> Ämne: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis
>
> Count us in ;)
>
> 2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
> >:
> >
> > I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it
> > (30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in
> > this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we /
> > someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the
> > errors / shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of
> > time, but I think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a
> > much better paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and
> > science being done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and
> UPV projects as well.
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > - thomas
> >
> > On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Boscá wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.
> >>
> >> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>:
> >>>
> >>> I’m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was
> >>> accepted as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold
> >>> arguments.
> >>>
> >>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6
> >>> project proposals – I certainly attended a few workshops together.
> >>> At some point he must have been alienated or something?? At any rate
> >>> I think it is our responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and
> >>> challenge this paper.
> >>> That’s
> >>> what science is about, isn’t it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openEHR-clinical mailing list
> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene
> > hr.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/da736dfb/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list