Target and (Astro-)WISE technologies - Data federations and its applications

After its first implementation in 2003 the Astro-WISE technology has been rolled out in several European countries and is used for the production of the KiDS survey data. In the multi-disciplinary Target initiative this technology, nicknamed WISE technology, has been further applied to a large number of projects. Here, we highlight the data handling of other astronomical applications, such as VLT-MUSE and LOFAR, together with some non-astronomical applications such as the medical projects Lifelines and GLIMPS, the MONK handwritten text recognition system, and business applications, by amongst others, the Target Holding. We describe some of the most important lessons learned and describe the application of the data-centric WISE type of approach to the Science Ground Segment of the Euclid satellite.Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures, Proceedngs IAU Symposium No 325 Astroinformatics 201

Information Accountability Framework for a Trusted Health Care System

Trusted health care outcomes are patient centric. Requirements to ensure both the quality and sharing of patients’ health records are a key for better clinical decision making. In the context of maintaining quality health, the sharing of data and information between professionals and patients is paramount. This information sharing is a challenge and costly if patients’ trust and institutional accountability are not established. Establishment of an Information Accountability Framework (IAF) is one of the approaches in this paper. The concept behind the IAF requirements are: transparent responsibilities, relevance of the information being used, and the establishment and evidence of accountability that all lead to the desired outcome of a Trusted Health Care System. Upon completion of this IAF framework the trust component between the public and professionals will be constructed. Preservation of the confidentiality and integrity of patients’ information will lead to trusted health care outcomes

The chaotic nature of healthcare information systems: The need for transdisciplinary collaboration

Copyright @ 2013 EMCIS.This paper demonstrates one of the challenges of the healthcare information systems development, namely the chaotic nature of healthcare systems. Although the reliable evidence demonstrating the positive effects of health information systems on safety and quality remains inconclusive (a growing body of research revealing the unintended consequences and potentially error producing effects of health information systems’ implementation. Different arguments from the literature concerning the chaotic nature of healthcare, including but not limited to the nature of patients and disease have been presented. The requirements of new ways of systems design and the need for transdisciplinary dynamic teams within the requirements engineering phase as a start has been discussed. These arguments have been investigated in the context of an exploratory case addressing one of the advanced oncology centres in the US. This paper concludes that there is an important need to rethink healthcare information systems development method, which has to be in a dynamic ongoing manner for some major issues

Building Data-Driven Pathways From Routinely Collected Hospital Data:A Case Study on Prostate Cancer

Background: Routinely collected data in hospitals is complex, typically heterogeneous, and scattered across multiple Hospital Information Systems (HIS). This big data, created as a byproduct of health care activities, has the potential to provide a better understanding of diseases, unearth hidden patterns, and improve services and cost. The extent and uses of such data rely on its quality, which is not consistently checked, nor fully understood. Nevertheless, using routine data for the construction of data-driven clinical pathways, describing processes and trends, is a key topic receiving increasing attention in the literature. Traditional algorithms do not cope well with unstructured processes or data, and do not produce clinically meaningful visualizations. Supporting systems that provide additional information, context, and quality assurance inspection are needed. Objective: The objective of the study is to explore how routine hospital data can be used to develop data-driven pathways that describe the journeys that patients take through care, and their potential uses in biomedical research; it proposes a framework for the construction, quality assessment, and visualization of patient pathways for clinical studies and decision support using a case study on prostate cancer. Methods: Data pertaining to prostate cancer patients were extracted from a large UK hospital from eight different HIS, validated, and complemented with information from the local cancer registry. Data-driven pathways were built for each of the 1904 patients and an expert knowledge base, containing rules on the prostate cancer biomarker, was used to assess the completeness and utility of the pathways for a specific clinical study. Software components were built to provide meaningful visualizations for the constructed pathways. Results: The proposed framework and pathway formalism enable the summarization, visualization, and querying of complex patient-centric clinical information, as well as the computation of quality indicators and dimensions. A novel graphical representation of the pathways allows the synthesis of such information. Conclusions: Clinical pathways built from routinely collected hospital data can unearth information about patients and diseases that may otherwise be unavailable or overlooked in hospitals. Data-driven clinical pathways allow for heterogeneous data (ie, semistructured and unstructured data) to be collated over a unified data model and for data quality dimensions to be assessed. This work has enabled further research on prostate cancer and its biomarkers, and on the development and application of methods to mine, compare, analyze, and visualize pathways constructed from routine data. This is an important development for the reuse of big data in hospitals

Slave to the Algorithm? Why a \u27Right to an Explanation\u27 Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For

Algorithms, particularly machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly important to individuals’ lives, but have caused a range of concerns revolving mainly around unfairness, discrimination and opacity. Transparency in the form of a “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive remedy since it intuitively promises to open the algorithmic “black box” to promote challenge, redress, and hopefully heightened accountability. Amidst the general furore over algorithmic bias we describe, any remedy in a storm has looked attractive. However, we argue that a right to an explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is unlikely to present a complete remedy to algorithmic harms, particularly in some of the core “algorithmic war stories” that have shaped recent attitudes in this domain. Firstly, the law is restrictive, unclear, or even paradoxical concerning when any explanation-related right can be triggered. Secondly, even navigating this, the legal conception of explanations as “meaningful information about the logic of processing” may not be provided by the kind of ML “explanations” computer scientists have developed, partially in response. ML explanations are restricted both by the type of explanation sought, the dimensionality of the domain and the type of user seeking an explanation. However, “subject-centric explanations (SCEs) focussing on particular regions of a model around a query show promise for interactive exploration, as do explanation systems based on learning a model from outside rather than taking it apart (pedagogical versus decompositional explanations) in dodging developers\u27 worries of intellectual property or trade secrets disclosure. Based on our analysis, we fear that the search for a “right to an explanation” in the GDPR may be at best distracting, and at worst nurture a new kind of “transparency fallacy.” But all is not lost. We argue that other parts of the GDPR related (i) to the right to erasure ( right to be forgotten ) and the right to data portability; and (ii) to privacy by design, Data Protection Impact Assessments and certification and privacy seals, may have the seeds we can use to make algorithms more responsible, explicable, and human-centered