@general-practitioners @CiLN-informatics
Interesting articles on a new crowd sourcing platform on patient health. Is this a form of patient reported outcome measures
Check it out [ https://lnkd.in/g7huPJ5 ]
And
Others like Paige are applying AI to “read” and better understand cancer pathology,
Stuff That Works (your first link) is very interesting. They ask one hell of a lot of questions, but it is clearly a well thought out site / service.
They basically have a seperate community around each condition, and are attempting to build a database of people’s disease experiences as well as identify those willing to participate in research going forward.
It is clearly open to significant bias, as only the most motivated (ie those who have suffered) and the highly health and digital literate will be inclined to participate.
Would you prefer this to Uptodate???
G
Hi Geoff
As it stands at the moment UPTODATE and our usual evidence base is what we rely upon. The question in the future will be the potential value of millions of small bits of evidence versus a smaller randomised trial number . Not yet time to throw baby out with bath water
I still trust uptodate…
They are completely different in approach and purpose.
UpToDate collates evidence from published works and presents it for practical application. Using the past to inform the present if you will.
Stuff That Works is about gathering data as broadly as possible going forwards. Using the present to inform the future basically. It isn’t a tool for clinicians to use now.
Interesting links thanks Grahame. I see it more like an online community ie patient peer support?