Reply to post: Re: Put it another way

Digital pathology and the big Cs (that’s ‘cancer’ and ‘cloud’)

John 110

Re: Put it another way

The main aim is not to give you the wrong (ie someone else's) result. So the basic data would be (as I said above) to enough to uniquely identify an individual.

The secondary consideration is to use any details supplied by the clinician to inform the result (in the case of a tissue biopsy, the clinician might tell us "wobbly lump on bottom" and we'd have to give consideration to the observed changes based on that. If in addition they tell us "has a habit of lying face down on a sunbed for hours" then we would take that into consideration when the result is interpreted.

Something to bear in mind is that with the current systems where I work, the images are stored on one server, referenced by a unique identifier (Lab number) and the patient data and the results, including the interpretation are stored on the Lab system on a server under our control. So in my world, the patient information would not be "cloudy" even though the raw image data might be. Insurance companies would then have to breach the firewalls to grab patient identifying information and data. Or the evil government of your choice could sell it to them, I suppose.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022