[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] graphing is_alpha as an approximated pseudo-number ?
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] graphing is_alpha as an approximated pseudo-number ? |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:11:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Done.
"<n" will plot at 1/2n
">n" will plot at 2n
Karsten
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 06:02:26PM +0000, Jim Busser wrote:
> A colleague elsewhere wrote the following:
>
> ****************
> I have been spending so much time on EMR requirements and functionality I am
> not interested in working on interfaces except where they impact on the EMR.
> An interesting little thing is on how to deal with a lab result that comes in
> like "<0.01" or ">10". The EMRs are set up to receive a numeric result but as
> soon as the "<" or other symbols are included things get screwed up. When
> looking at a text base report this is not a problem as the human reader
> understands what this means. The computer does not. When graphing out these
> results some EMRs do not display that result. The labs insist that that is
> how they should report results that are out of the accurately measurable
> range. I get stuck with looking at a graph and not seeing these significant
> high or low results. Many doctors say they do not bother with graphs. My take
> is that they have not seen good graphs and they have been taught to "look at
> the numbers". My feeling is that when they were taught it was not easy to
> produce graphs and all that was available were raw results or flowsheets.
> Graphs can be a wonderful way of displaying a lot of results in a way that it
> makes it easier to understand things. It is also a way of combining various
> things like lab results, vital signs and medication use. I think that there
> should be some teaching done on these issues.
> ****************
>
> so I was wondering in the case of (say) TSH values which were
>
> 2011-09-30 0.7 uU/mL
> 2012-07-20 1.2 uU/mL
> 2013-05-28 <0.01 uU/mL
>
> would it be computationally manageable, and clinically reasonable, to pass
> over to gnuplot
>
> 0.7 (as is)
> 1.2 (as is)
> a derived value
>
> where in the case of an is_alpha which contains < to parse what is beyond the
> symbol and to pass to gnuplot either one half, or perhaps one third, of a
>
> CAST (numeral text as a number)
>
> and, in the case of an is_alpha which contains >, to pass say double or
> triple the numeral text?
>
> I am just thinking that despite that such values are known precisely, they
> confer no wrong or even misleading semantic and, besides, these do not alter
> the original value stored in GNUmed's columns.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Jim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnumed-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] graphing is_alpha as an approximated pseudo-number ?,
Karsten Hilbert <=