Machine Learning , some thoughts

Stefan Sauermann sauermann at
Tue Jun 26 14:19:11 EDT 2018

Dear Bert,
You mention:
 "There will be some semantics.
A clinician can indicate that data are from the user story, or from the 
observation, so, that is already some information."

If there is some semantics: The archetype to store this information will then need at least some structure, and not be "completely generic"?

(I try to better understand your use case. Probably "generic" needs a definition to agree on?)

Greetings, all the best,

Am 26. Juni 2018 16:16:51 MESZ schrieb Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at>:
>On 26-06-18 14:35, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>> Dear Bert, all!
>> Sorry if this consumes excess bandwith, feel free to delete.
>> The case you describe clearly provides a sound reason why "generic 
>> archetypes will remain necessary".
>> I agree completely. This use case must always be satisfied.
>> It does not include automated processing at the receiving end. The 
>> receiving party must read the information and decide what to do,
>> their human brain cells, no 100% reliable computer aided decision 
>> support (as in medical devices).
>> In this use case, I see no difference between:
>> - transmitting information within a "generic archetype"
>> - transmitting the same information in unstructured free text.
>> Both technologies provide a useful solution for the use case.
>>  - So (in my humble view) this specific use case does not demand a 
>> "generic archetype". In other words, it needs no archetype at all.
>Just a few days ago I heard about Google scanning a great number of 
>files of all kind and format, searching for medical information. The 
>results were quite remarkable.
>But unstructured information is not what I am aiming for.
>There will be some semantics.
>A clinician can indicate that data are from the user story, or from the
>observation, so, that is already some information.
>While talking with the patient, the doctor can measure heartbeat, 
>bloodpressure, saturation, temperature, bloodsugar, even almost without
>touching de patient. It will be more soon.
>Development goes so fast.
>And patients can also measure data at home, or at work, or wherever.
>Context is also location, patient personal data, time of the day, 
>jet-lag, season of the year, weather conditions, other medical 
>conditions, alcohol consumption, social status
>Most of these data are not regarded as relevant in the actual medical 
>condition. So archetypes do not have items for this.
>There are two kind of medical data.
>a) Medical data which are relevant in the context of a specific medical
>b) Medical data of which the relevancy is not yet known in the context 
>of a medical condition, or another medical condition, which maybe is 
>also not known at the moment.
>The data of the second kind are also medical data, so why not store
>Karsten yesterday said, a person at the doctor should be more then a 
>medical complaint. I agree with that. But the current medical practice 
>is not like that.
>You go to the doctor with a medical complaint, and you talk about that,
>the doctor does research in that context, and the software finds some 
>archetypes which fit to that.
>But the person should be seen as more then a medical complaint, but as
>complex of conditions and lifestyle.
>We need generic archetypes which can store machine generated datasets
>store information about the whole person, instead of only the medical 
>condition which is subject of conversation.
>I believe I am the only person in this list who thinks like that. But 
>that does not matter.
>Have a nice day
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list