Machine Learning , some thoughts
a.anastasiou at swansea.ac.uk
Mon Jun 25 10:51:49 EDT 2018
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 still
need the functionality of the CKM, in the same way that you need consensus in an open source project. You need to file
issues, that are reproducible and reasonable and someone takes responsibility for dealing with them and there is a cycle
of "refreshing" the current best knowledge and so on.
I am hoping that somewhere, some junior doctors are taking up projects in defining Archetypes and Templates and buddy up
with their friends who joined Computer Science instead and they all become a tribe too.
They could be working on "Archetypes & Templates for Secondary Uses of Routinely Collected Data" and that could be a lab for development of new things
away from "practice".
As a side comment: I think that you are also speaking from different experiences. There is still some way to go in the transition to an electronic HER that would
enable all this. Maybe things are progressing faster where you are (?)
All the best
From: Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>
Sent: 25 June 2018 14:35
To: Anastasiou A. <A.Anastasiou at Swansea.ac.uk>; For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts
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 archetypes, which are many times reviewed, and which have a review-status and a kind of guaranteed quality. There is a risque of bias in this, for example: That datapoint is not practical, a GP will never record that, or it is not significant. Those predefined archetypes are always a filter on what can occur. But they have also an advantage because they are build on common sense, on what is desirable in healthcare to know. So mostly they cover what is to say about a disease, but it is always knowledge from the past, and always in common sense, so it is quite conservative.
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.
So we don't need to worry, we throw nothing away. We are adding, not replacing.
More information about the openEHR-clinical