4 ms·
I completely disagree. A lot of the data is standardized already, such as lab values and other so-called "structured" data, and can be used almost immediately w
by queuebert 5y ago
I completely disagree. A lot of the data is standardized already, such as lab values and other so-called "structured" data, and can be used almost immediately without much cleaning. This is most of the routine data collection. The largest remaining part is patient notes, which are free form text but still contain plenty of useful information searchable by keyword or extractable by human curators.
You are correct that if doctors could be more strategic about how they collect info it would make the job of the data scientist much easier. This is especially true in radiology and pathology.
- stryker7001 5y agoWhat does more strategic mean? Doctors aren’t data collectors. Their job is to provide patient care. If you want data collected, design a system that doesn't add to documentation burden.
- rscho 5y agoYeah yeah, I've heard the same story many times. So where are the fantastic new discoveries made on mass lab statistics, then? Because epidemiologist have had access to this same data since a long time already, and they are not any less capable than industry "data scientists". The saying goes: "90% of diagnoses are made on patient history". Most of labs require context for interpretation, so the vast majority of what is collected is statistical noise.