Re-purposing archetypes? [was Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts)
thomas.beale at openehr.org
Fri Jun 29 04:26:45 EDT 2018
On 28/06/2018 15:49, Bert Verhees wrote:
> 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.
Well there is no problem to do that - there is nothing specifically in
the OBSERVATION model that mentions health problem; OBSERVATION is
really just a 3-way structure of data/state/protocol for recording one
or more samples of an datum. It's quite well adapted in fact to sports
data, because the data attribute can record a time-series of a datum (or
more than one) from the body, say heart rate and breathing, and the
state (remember, 'state' means patient state) can record data items from
e.g. a treadmill, e.g. a computed work rate or maybe the stroke rate on
a rowing machine. So if you want to study heart rate and breathing
against physical work rate, the data structures are very convenient.
> Maybe more neutral, an archetype for food intake without mentioning
> the term Obesity.
I assume you are referring to the documentation more than the structures
- that's probably a good point. If an archetype can equally be used for
a problem (obesity) as well as a wellness program (general diet
tracking) then it should be documented to have those possible uses.
> 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.
I would expect most INstructions and Actions to be specific for sport.
> 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?
I think you have a good point about the documented uses of archetypes
potentially being too narrow - it would be worth a global review to see
if anything already there can be used for purposes different from that
originally envisaged. I wonder if clinical modellers have anything to
say about this.
More information about the openEHR-clinical