Machine Learning , some thoughts

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Thu Jun 28 10:49:40 EDT 2018


On 28-06-18 16:12, Thomas Beale wrote:
>
>
> On 27/06/2018 16:57, Bert Verhees wrote:
>>
>> I have sport-app which tells me the power I produce, and it tells me 
>> that in Watt/kg
>> That is more important then BMI, because athletes can have a BMI 
>> above thirty (muscles are heavier then fat) and be very healthy, so 
>> important is to know what they can do with all that weight.
>>
>> I didn't see that one in CKM. When do you expect that to be there? 
>> Will it make the next Olympics (in 2020 in Tokyo)
>> And in the meantime, we tell those athletes to be patient?
>
> or... someone who is working on an application or system to be used 
> for sports can just create drafts of the archetypes and upload them to 
> CKM now. The review might take a bit of time, but not that long, if 
> the archetypes are not complicated.

That might be, but when one wants to create a product, not long, still 
is long, and every change in thinking again requires administrative 
procedures. And those procedures are not the problem, the problem is 
that review can lead to changes. The control get out of hands.

But there is also a good site on CKM. The archetypes are written in 
public, they don't are in secret hands of big vendors. It keeps the 
market and knowledge pool open.

>
>>
>> For boxers, weight is also very important, if the grow into an higher 
>> class, they are the lightest person in that class and become from 
>> winner a loser.
>> So they watch very carefully what they eat. They could use a 
>> machine-learning program which tells them how many sandwiches to eat.
>> Because every person reacts different on food, the one gets fat from 
>> the same amount of food where another stays the same.
>>
>> They need tables which tell, the bread with cheese has so much 
>> calories, and bread with fish so much. How would these tables come 
>> alive. In archetypes?
>
> no because this is reference knowledge, in the same sense as 
> references ranges of path results, or formal drug descriptions. 
> Archetypes are models of data about instances (individuals). You would 
> probably want to create archetypes for recording meals / ingredients 
> however, then an application can compute for you your calorific intake.
>
>> Exactly, and it can be a micro-archetype, which makes it modular. Not 
>> a cluster, because it is only one data-item. It will be an ELEMENT. A 
>> CLUSTER with only one datapoint looks a bit stupid.
>> Better is in CKM that they replace all CLUSTER slots with ITEM slots 
>> so that it can be a CLUSTER or ELEMENT, what is appropriate.
>
> it is immaterial, as far as I can see whether it is a CLUSTER (= a 
> data group) or an ELEMENT (= a data point). If some device outputs 
> treadmill speed, treadmill incline, heart rate, vO2, work rate etc as 
> a group, then you will have an archetype for this. With a bit of study 
> and review of typical devices, it will be fairly clear what kinds of 
> things go together in what ways. For example, input variables such as 
> treadmill speed and incline could be anything, depending on the 
> machine in use, but the physiological variables are all going to be 
> pretty standard ones.
>
> If you have customers wanting this stuff, I suggest making some 
> initial proposals for CKM.

That could be possible, but then you get structure, and 
node-identifiers. Maybe just flat paths are more convenient, so that the 
OBSERVATION archetypes do not require CLUSTERS but ITEMs so that it is 
possible to include ELEMENTs on that point. I don't understand the 
restriction in a slot for allowing only CLUSTER, especially if that slot 
has an occurrence of *
But also I don't see an OBSERVATION archetype which is equipped for 
sports or lifestyle.

The problem is that I don't have customers for this, because they get 
scared away, when seeing CKM, they think it is not for them. They think 
it is for healthcare problems.
Like CKM has a lot of archetypes for all kind of OBSERVATIONs, but all 
related to problems, it should have an archetype for a not 
problem-related OBSERVATIONs.
Maybe more neutral, an archetype for food intake without mentioning the 
term Obesity.
Then it could attract vendors which work on the fast growing 
market-segment for sports and lifestyle.

How good would it be when the machinery for OpenEhr becomes available 
for this market-segment? The flexibility, the model-based queries, the 
data-storage, all the advantages for OpenEhr.

And also think of INSTRUCTION-archetypes to notate sport-plans, and 
workout out well. And ACTION archetypes to record the proceedings.

How good would that be. In sports and leisure software they have the 
same problems as in medical health software. When they want a database 
change, they are afraid that forgotten corners/things in the software 
will break.
This is for me a very strong point of OpenEhr, you can always introduce 
another (better) archetype, without breaking the old one, and without 
breaking the data of the old one.
And it is very easy to do.

How easy is it to create a sports-app when you have an OpenEhr kernel 
running in the background? Just write a few archetypes, create some 
API's for those archetypes, write an app-GUI with flutter ( 
https://flutter.io/ )
And you are in business. And of course, having monitoring apps for the 
desktop as web-clients for team-leaders, and so on.

And because sports and leisure is very closely related to 
problem-centric healthcare, it is OpenEhr which can be ready to fill up 
the market-gap that now exist.

So, how about that?

Bert



More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list