Machine Learning , some thoughts

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Mon Jun 25 11:43:28 EDT 2018


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 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 believe were are in misunderstanding. I am not against CKM. I am for 
an addition on CKM, and then it is an addition which can enclose 
unexpected functionality, new desirable datapoints, and which will have 
a flat structure so it is easy to use for machine searching/learning 
processing.

Machine learning in combination with revolutionary GUI enhancements, in 
combination with third-party devices, home-devices, IoT, phone-apps, 
references to blockchained applications, surgery or other treatment 
abroad, it can bring new insights, new datapoints, more datapoints, it 
can change parts of healthcare.

I think knowledge-gathering must change. It must also happen also more 
implicitly, automatically.



>
> 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
> Athanasios Anastasiou
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
>
> Bert
>




More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list