Agree with Mark. Only how I wish there was ONE physicians' ontology. Added problem is it changes rapidly with time. rakesh http://peoplesgroup.academia.edu/RakeshBiswas On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:08:38 -0800, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Peter, I agree with 99% of what you said but this bit bothers me a bit: >> >> >> People regularly misinterpret medical documents currently by examining >>> them without the proper medical training. Adding superclasses etc or >>> deleting elements as they feel necessary is just formalising the >>> process where normal people interpret advice given by medically >>> trained people. >>> >> >> Surely the point of what we do (or maybe just should do) with online >> data is to minimise the risk of misinterpretation? >> > > > It's a bit presumptuous to say that any interpretation is the only one, and > that other interpretations are 'mis-'. > > Besides, I think the discussion is a bit moot. The Web has taught us > (repeatedly!) that trying to dictate what people do with information is a > waste of time. If we're going to give patients access to their data (and I > think we should, and I suspect it will soon be the case that we have no > choice anyway), then IMO the best we can do is provide them OUR (their > physician's) ontology for interpreting that data. This means that the trust > relationship between patient and physician is critical to guide the patient > to prefer their physician's interpretation vs that of some other quack with > their wacky ontology. > > I don't see that we have any greater control over the situation than that. > > > M > > > > -- > Mark D Wilkinson, PI Bioinformatics > Assistant Professor, Medical Genetics > The James Hogg iCAPTURE Centre for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research > Providence Heart + Lung Institute > University of British Columbia - St. Paul's Hospital > Vancouver, BC, Canada > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 16:01:19 UTC