Recently, I was asked "I was wondering what process would you follow that could build on what we know and dont know from <a current hackathon> and your hackathons? We, ... are facing the issues of preparing for recurrence..."
Here was my response
Problem
Kidneycancer.org and SecureAIlabs.com are creating a federated database query system and have asked for input on their effort.
Eva Comperat's session at the 2021 GUASCO described several new Kidney cancer subtypes including a thyroid-like variant dubbed TLFRCC. Ko describes this variant in her paper "Whole-genome and transcriptome profiling of a metastatic thyroid-like follicular renal cell carcinoma".
Assuming money is no object, your medical care is a function of your clinician's medical knowledge. If you have a common, well understood condition, your clinician will treat you using a "Standard of Care", a written procedure that tells them exactly what to do and how to repeat it with great success. Effective "Standards of Care" are usually straightforward. For example, few people die of
I recently had a discussion about the value of hackathons.
Here was my argument.
The Problem: Cancer Research Doesn't Work
I received this question two days ago on SmartPatients.com "What do your docs say about Pap type 1?"
Good question. Here is my detailed response.
"So far, NO improvement in outcome over the last decade."
Based on process problems I've seen at hackathons to date, my "hackathon goal" was to map Pete Kane's objectives1 to a plan containing activities that we could execute and improve at TRI-con. The subsequent "2020 Kidney Cancer Hackathon: Results" post describes what actually happened. Of course, I expect the plan to be iterate
