5 ms·

The monitoring devices are the real problem, not the people. Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic mea

The monitoring devices are the real problem, not the people. Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic measurement when dealing with an incredibly complex system such as the human body. A lot more specialist equipment is going to be needed to come to a final conclusion (Questioning from experts, MRIs, XRays, even Microsurgery with cameras). What consumers can currently access are weighing scales, and heartbeat monitors. Maybe even temperature monitors. Do you think this stuff is useful for diagnosing medical conditions? There is a whole lot going on under the surface that we simply can't see at all, that's the real problem.

rhombocombus 9y ago
It is possible that some of the noise (non-medically relevant changes) could be filtered algorithmically, and conversely conditions might be able to be picked up that might not be noticed by a normal provider. Physicians use those tools to diagnose disease all the time, that's why there is a thermometer, scale, and stethoscope in every doctor's office in the world, I don't understand how these tools aren't useful.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  They can tell you something is different, or out of the normal range, they don't give you the real cause of the problem though. This is left to the doctor who will take into account age, gender, medical history, as well as the fuzzy description of the problem from the patient. Then they'll give you some medication and hope that it heals in a few days, if not, then re-assess and do more trial and error diagnostics and medications (which can go on for months, even years). If we had technology that could monitor internal changes on a real time basis though, then the face of medicine would change forever.
killjoywashere 9y ago
Your comment is a great example of the disconnect between people in this space and people not in this space. Do you actually think anyone in this space would believe that weight spikes are tied to CHF in all cases? You don't diagnose CHF by weight. It's something you trend in known patients. Comments like this are one reason why doctors give zero shits about the potential of computing. Explaining even the basics of a narrow area of human physiology to some overly arrogant IT guy is maddening (arrogant is fine, for Pete's sake, it's not like doctors aren't arrogant). Yes, the doctors can be blamed for conflating computer scientists with the IT guy who came to replace their mouse. But the IT guy and the CS guy (always a guy) can both equally be blamed for their unholy arrogance. How many lives did you save today? Zero? Ok, at least I didn't spill any data (that I know of). This can go round, and round, and round. You have no idea how far down the problem goes. I know this because no one knows how far the problem goes. We sequence hundreds of thousands if not millions of genomes, and still we don't know. Do you really think we spend a decade in training and come out thinking everything is simple?! Now, on the flip side, doctors also don't even know how to frame their problems, in no small part because they're only required to take 2 semesters of calculus. And then most of them punch out of math as fast as possible. Computer scientists should be going to biology conferences. Go to ASCO. Pick a medical specialty, they have multiple conferences a year, I garauntee it. There's one or 10 in your city. If you want middle ground, look at microbiology, immunology, molecular biology. They use a fair number of quantitative methods (sequencing, mass spec, flow cytometry, etc).
- hacker_9 9y ago
  What an ironic comment - I tell a software developer that medical science isn't as easy as measuring weight changes, supporting the point that doctors need to do a lot more than that to come to a diagnosis, and then a doctor (I assume) tells me to STFU because.. oh, of what I originally said in the first place. What was your point here? I hope you don't make these kind of mistakes with actual patients.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    This is what I was responding to: > Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic measurement when dealing with an incredibly complex system such as the human body. Considering you were knowingly addressing someone who worked in the space and blew right past something you obviously knew within seconds (not all weight spikes equate to CHF), thinking there was even a remote possiblity they hadn't thought of that, despite having a physician on staff to discuss with. Your response here (as quoted) is exactly why doctors throw their hands in the air and wait for someone else to come along. You actually thought you had an insight and despite remonstration, you persist in thinking you outwitted everyone on this thread. That's the point. You're lack of humility coupled with your snowflake sensitivity is why we don't want to work with a lot of computer people. The sad fact that a lot of doctors also equate computer science with IT is another problem.
    - hacker_9 9y ago
      You would think OP would know that, but the original comment basically tells us all to measure our weight simply to check for CHF. If it were that simple we'd all do it I presume, but of course weight change can be a range of things. Many of which are not problematic. Hence why I pointed out that better measurement devices are needed. I've also got a feeling that it may just be you in particular that 'IT' don't like dealing with.
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        You're still missing killjoywashere's point. Their point was that _of course_ everyone involved (including the person you were originally replying to) knows that a weight-measurement is not sufficient to diagnose CHF. Literally everyone in the conversation has already presupposed that point. However, blhack working with a physician learned that it would be a super useful medical tool to have an automated mechanism for taking those weight measurements because it's a useful early indicator. Your response was exceptionally dismissive, given that there were people in that space who knew what they were doing and knew it was useful. Yet, you came by and in 10 seconds decided it wasn't useful and wasn't worth doing. So, what makes you more qualified to make that decision that blhack and the physician they were working with? Why are you so arrogant to assume that the physician who stated that would be useful was just wrong? Your insight wasn't particularly insightful, and you presented it in a way that was condescending and dismissive of others in the space.
c3534l 9y ago
If you're going to monitor every aspect of a person's life, you're going to generate so much data that you'll generate almost nothing but false positives. None the less, I don't see why you couldn't just scale your level of significance way up and be a useful screening device. Obviously any diagnosis must be made by a doctor, but that doesn't mean your biometric information wouldn't be useful.
frahs 9y ago
This isn't about diagnosis, it's about monitoring already at-risk patients. He clearly stated nurses take this sort of measurement manually for at-risk patients, it's a simple solution to automate an existing workflow that involves an unnecessary amount of manual labor.
jmull 9y ago
I think they only use weight to screen people specifically at risk to determine if they need to take a closer look. An easy, fast, cheap test which usually means a more expensive test or exam doesn’t need to take place.

rhombocombus 9y ago

It is possible that some of the noise (non-medically relevant changes) could be filtered algorithmically, and conversely conditions might be able to be picked up that might not be noticed by a normal provider. Physicians use those tools to diagnose disease all the time, that's why there is a thermometer, scale, and stethoscope in every doctor's office in the world, I don't understand how these tools aren't useful.

hacker_9 9y ago
They can tell you something is different, or out of the normal range, they don't give you the real cause of the problem though. This is left to the doctor who will take into account age, gender, medical history, as well as the fuzzy description of the problem from the patient. Then they'll give you some medication and hope that it heals in a few days, if not, then re-assess and do more trial and error diagnostics and medications (which can go on for months, even years). If we had technology that could monitor internal changes on a real time basis though, then the face of medicine would change forever.

killjoywashere 9y ago

Your comment is a great example of the disconnect between people in this space and people not in this space. Do you actually think anyone in this space would believe that weight spikes are tied to CHF in all cases? You don't diagnose CHF by weight. It's something you trend in known patients. Comments like this are one reason why doctors give zero shits about the potential of computing. Explaining even the basics of a narrow area of human physiology to some overly arrogant IT guy is maddening (arrogant is fine, for Pete's sake, it's not like doctors aren't arrogant). Yes, the doctors can be blamed for conflating computer scientists with the IT guy who came to replace their mouse. But the IT guy and the CS guy (always a guy) can both equally be blamed for their unholy arrogance. How many lives did you save today? Zero? Ok, at least I didn't spill any data (that I know of). This can go round, and round, and round. You have no idea how far down the problem goes. I know this because no one knows how far the problem goes. We sequence hundreds of thousands if not millions of genomes, and still we don't know. Do you really think we spend a decade in training and come out thinking everything is simple?! Now, on the flip side, doctors also don't even know how to frame their problems, in no small part because they're only required to take 2 semesters of calculus. And then most of them punch out of math as fast as possible. Computer scientists should be going to biology conferences. Go to ASCO. Pick a medical specialty, they have multiple conferences a year, I garauntee it. There's one or 10 in your city. If you want middle ground, look at microbiology, immunology, molecular biology. They use a fair number of quantitative methods (sequencing, mass spec, flow cytometry, etc).

hacker_9 9y ago
What an ironic comment - I tell a software developer that medical science isn't as easy as measuring weight changes, supporting the point that doctors need to do a lot more than that to come to a diagnosis, and then a doctor (I assume) tells me to STFU because.. oh, of what I originally said in the first place. What was your point here? I hope you don't make these kind of mistakes with actual patients.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  This is what I was responding to: > Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic measurement when dealing with an incredibly complex system such as the human body. Considering you were knowingly addressing someone who worked in the space and blew right past something you obviously knew within seconds (not all weight spikes equate to CHF), thinking there was even a remote possiblity they hadn't thought of that, despite having a physician on staff to discuss with. Your response here (as quoted) is exactly why doctors throw their hands in the air and wait for someone else to come along. You actually thought you had an insight and despite remonstration, you persist in thinking you outwitted everyone on this thread. That's the point. You're lack of humility coupled with your snowflake sensitivity is why we don't want to work with a lot of computer people. The sad fact that a lot of doctors also equate computer science with IT is another problem.
  - hacker_9 9y ago
    You would think OP would know that, but the original comment basically tells us all to measure our weight simply to check for CHF. If it were that simple we'd all do it I presume, but of course weight change can be a range of things. Many of which are not problematic. Hence why I pointed out that better measurement devices are needed. I've also got a feeling that it may just be you in particular that 'IT' don't like dealing with.
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      You're still missing killjoywashere's point. Their point was that _of course_ everyone involved (including the person you were originally replying to) knows that a weight-measurement is not sufficient to diagnose CHF. Literally everyone in the conversation has already presupposed that point. However, blhack working with a physician learned that it would be a super useful medical tool to have an automated mechanism for taking those weight measurements because it's a useful early indicator. Your response was exceptionally dismissive, given that there were people in that space who knew what they were doing and knew it was useful. Yet, you came by and in 10 seconds decided it wasn't useful and wasn't worth doing. So, what makes you more qualified to make that decision that blhack and the physician they were working with? Why are you so arrogant to assume that the physician who stated that would be useful was just wrong? Your insight wasn't particularly insightful, and you presented it in a way that was condescending and dismissive of others in the space.

c3534l 9y ago

If you're going to monitor every aspect of a person's life, you're going to generate so much data that you'll generate almost nothing but false positives. None the less, I don't see why you couldn't just scale your level of significance way up and be a useful screening device. Obviously any diagnosis must be made by a doctor, but that doesn't mean your biometric information wouldn't be useful.

frahs 9y ago

This isn't about diagnosis, it's about monitoring already at-risk patients. He clearly stated nurses take this sort of measurement manually for at-risk patients, it's a simple solution to automate an existing workflow that involves an unnecessary amount of manual labor.

jmull 9y ago

I think they only use weight to screen people specifically at risk to determine if they need to take a closer look. An easy, fast, cheap test which usually means a more expensive test or exam doesn’t need to take place.