Machine Learning , some thoughts

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Wed Jun 27 13:57:27 EDT 2018


On 27-06-18 18:55, Anastasiou A. wrote:
>
>   openEHR goes back to 1994 and its ideas are starting to become more widely known in the last few years.
It is true, especially thanks to the good work of Marand but also others.
> As long as it is not part of medical school training, I do not think the CKM will see the archetypes you are dreaming about or
> others with more immediate application.
>
> The design of archetypes is up to domain specialists. I cannot say if the example you provide is accurate or not.

It is a measurement for athletes. Sport-apps can give this value. But it 
is only an example, there are many.

>
>>>> Maybe it is not really generated but delivered by the producer of the device, a minimalistic archetype, it is not important, important is that it a minimalistic archetype is which can contain the data which are to delivered.
>>>> Most manufacturers will not write archetypes, so a software vendor selling an openehr system is to deliver an archetype in which the data can be enveloped.
>>> What would be great for manufacturers would be to tell "us" what it is that their device measures. If they could do it with proposing an Archetype hierarchy for vitals derived by consumer devices that would be even better.
>> Of course they will tell people and let them write archetypes, if they want to support OpenEhr. But mostly they do not want that. They deliver the Watts/Kg on a webservice as just a number. We envelop it in a micro-archetype, so it can find a place in an OpenEhr database.
> It is not up to them. There is nothing stopping people to start modelling the outputs of these devices on CKM.
> And by the way, if anyone wants to do it (https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/tags/science), let me know, I'd give it a try.
I don't see it happening, this is also because the community on OpenEhr 
is health-problem-centric thinking, and what we also need is 
health-lifestyle/sport/consumer thinking.
The culture change from problem-centric-care to health-centric-care is 
not yet happening on CKM.

That is with communities, you get what you get. And even if they were, 
would they be able to keep up with the industry?
And why not let the industry design their own archetypes? Or the 
software vendors?

I don't see why that is such a big deal for you.
> The webservice example is what I would consider a hack. It produces an isolated Archetype just for the sake of storing it in the EHR in a convenient form.
> What is Watts/kg as an observation?

It is used by runners and cyclists, the more watts per kg you can 
produce the faster you can run or ride. Especially in the mountains, 
weight is a real enemy. They say that every kg above the ideal weight 
cost 30 seconds on Alpe d'Huez. Froome is now 68 kg. When you have less 
kg, then you need less Watts to ride and every Watt makes you faster. So 
Watts per Kg is very important.
But you want software for many more things, how is your heart doing when 
riding at steep sloop of 10%, and what if you push the rate 5 beats 
higher, how long can you do that? Does it improve or does it slowly go down?


>>> I do not think that this means "Any permissible". I think that this
>>> means "It is too early to tell". When we have Archetypes for those other RMs / Formalisms then these slots will need to be specified too.
>> I do not want to discuss the hard and good work reviewers do. And I do not want to criticize them.
>> Their task is hard. Maybe too hard. Maybe CKM should not be the only source of truth
> What makes you think that the people working in an alternative form of CKM would not come across the same modelling problems?

If more people are busy with archetypes writing, CKM can do the 
problem-related, others can do the sport-related. They do not need to 
know about each other. Some vendors like to work in secrecy. They do not 
want to give away their ideas before they come to market.

> It is hard to create a coherent model by which to express what is happening in the domain but it has been done in Mathematics.
> Why not in Medicine too? (Or maybe the informatics aspects of it).

I believe you want to recall this. This is blasphemy, comparing 
healthcare with mathematics. May will disagree with you, and I think 
they are right.


>
> All the best
> Athanasios Anastasiou

Good luck.

Suddenly I realize that I should be working right now. Have a nice 
evening (in the Netherlands it is evening, but I work :-(




More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list