rscho

59 ms·

751.
by rscho 5y ago
Think of IT support suddenly encountering their 10th script kiddie of the day. That's a more relevant image.
752.
by rscho 5y ago
Doctors are not here to do research. It's not their job. Yes, this means usual care always lags behind research by years or at least the time to formulate guidelines. No, you'll accomplish nothing trying to force the hand of clini
753.
by rscho 5y ago
I don't use anything not covered by guidelines if I can avoid it. And in the event I can't avoid it, I'll always go for the more usual practice, i.e. the one backed by years and years of experience. If you want to participate
754.
by rscho 5y ago
You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one. This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs. Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic
755.
by rscho 5y ago
Americans like to believe that becoming a doctor is so much harder in the US. This is not true. I am a foreign medical grad. It is actually pretty easy to get a passing mark on your exams, and from that pov your system is not what it seems.
756.
by rscho 5y ago
In medicine, if you opt in for something that falls into the domain of the experimental or research, then you should know that you are doing this for yourself, but for others who will benefit from the knowledge that it worked or failed. If
757.
by rscho 5y ago
1. People want to take metformin. They will cite various sources they extract from Pubmed, but the truth is that they got the impression that metformin was good for them while reading pop-sci articles and Facebook threads. 2. They then proc
758.
by rscho 5y ago
Xfce. It's really very good. If you're not too much into aesthetics.
759.
by rscho 5y ago
The point of research is to have a controlled experiment. Not a bunch of individuals taking whatever they like on their own.
760.
by rscho 5y ago
You should be really weary of acidosis. It's dangerous.
761.
by rscho 5y ago
Certainly. And in that case, you should proceed only if really desired. And realize that doing this is not meant to help you, but to help others who will learn from the experience.
762.
by rscho 5y ago
Yes. To say that I don't need assistance. It spares people the effort of scouring Pubmed for nothing.
763.
by rscho 5y ago
I am well aware of the downsides of metformin since someone ends up in my ER (and sometimes dies) because of it most weeks. So you'll excuse me if an off-label and very new potential indication is not an immediate go for me. When we wa
764.
by rscho 5y ago
I'm so happy and relieved that I don't have to practice in the US anymore.
765.
by rscho 5y ago
Yes, I agree. But not all studies. There is a substantial proportion of studies that are just statistical noise, and a smaller but still substantial part that are outright fraud. However, individual experiments are not studies in the academ
766.
by rscho 5y ago
It's the standard of one particular professional with 15y of clinical practice and research who's seen every kind of manipulation and incompetence in medicine. But yeah, it may be silly. We'll see about that in the coming dec
767.
by rscho 5y ago
And choloroquine! Let's not forget chloroquine. It can beat anything.
768.
by rscho 5y ago
Years and years of widespread clinical practice would be my standard, but I'll make do with multiple large-scale randomized studies AND precise guidelines if absolutely necessary. As for evidence seeking, clinical research happens to b
769.
by rscho 5y ago
There are many things I don't know. However, here's one thing I know to be true: individual experiments do not make for population-level generalizations. Additionally, dieting by reducing or even excluding a single well-known food
770.
by rscho 5y ago
And rightfully so given the state of the evidence.
771.
by rscho 5y ago
This whole comment section is totally delusional regarding the reliability of medical statistics and preliminary data in life science. It's funny (and sad) to see people easily disparaging "state-of-the-art treatments" be so
772.
by rscho 5y ago
Forth was originally thought of as a "fourth generation" language when Chuck Moore designed it while doing astronomy research.
773.
by rscho 5y ago
He holds a grudge against J, but not everyone does. I write research code in J and it's a very good little language. For instance, scripting is much easier in J. (Dyalog) APL is much more like an APL machine (in the sense of the LISP m
774.
by rscho 5y ago
> modern machines can detect anomalies but doctors still learn how to interpret EKGs and double check what the machine says. Uh, TBH no professional so much as glances through the automated EKG summary. It's utterly useless and coul
775.
by rscho 5y ago
> What I fail to understand is how you cannot see that there must necessarily be predictive value in such a database. I can see allright. But you cannot see that your hypothetical database is lacking most of the info because your doc act
776.
by rscho 5y ago
Trivial radiology is pattern matching. Radiology for which you need a radiologist for is not. Yes, you could replace part of radiology and some radiologists with algorithms today. Unfortunately, those are also mostly the cases where we don&
777.
by rscho 5y ago
We're terrible at bayesian logic all right, but still better than machines lacking most of the data picture. That's why the priority is not to push lab model efficiency but to push for policy changes that encourage sensible gather
778.
by rscho 5y ago
> Any sound reason The job of a GP is actually probably one of the top hardest to automate, because the GP's main (and often only) job is to extract information. And that _does not_ consist in performing plenty of tests, but in spea
779.
by rscho 5y ago
They are detecting what they are testing for. But that's in most cases irrelevant regarding what happens to the patient afterwards, because it's lacking major connexions to the clinical situation that will have to be filled up by
780.
by rscho 5y ago
If you want to replace radiologists, then start by understanding what radiologists do. If your only answer to that is 'they describe what they see' then you'll have to think a lot harder than that.

More ›