I don’t think the examples shown reflect an element of critique.

The nordicc trial was published last year. This is recent results, trials with 10 year followup take a long time to run.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375

If you have complete AV block, a leadless pacemaker is less good than one with multiple leads, since it allows pacing multiple chambers and maintaining synchrony between A and V.

There are now leadless devices that communicate with each other using RF.

That's neat, although the left channel of my wireless earbuds drop out like 2% of the time!

What I want is a shoulder implanted pacemaker that's significantly smaller, with a quarter of the primary battery capacity, and an inductively charged supercap that can store enough charge to run at least week between charges.

Not all treatments are equally likely as well. Given how good dietary science is outside of cancer, less optimistic at rigorous studies in this area.

With AIMI, we released EchoNet-Dynamic, the largest open dataset of echocardiograms (cardiac ultrasounds) and expert cardiologist labels as part of a paper published last year. The dataset went through a rigorous review to make sure no identifying information was leaked as part of the process. Happy to answer any questions.

The data license seems to be research-only. How would people be able to build products/medical device software with this license? Or is that not a goal of releasing this data?

It’s a research dataset, similar to MNIST or CIFAR. Stanford does not want to be in the business of monetizing patient data, so it restricts commercial use.

You just stated a paradox like it makes sense. If you _didn’t_ want to be in the business of monetizing data, while providing data, you _wouldn’t_ restrict commercial use.

how broad is the non commercial use clause? I can imagine i.e. some BigPharma buying another datasets and using your data sets for who knows, validation of the acquired ones/metadata improvement etc. No commercial product in the area of imaging/diagnosis but maybe some commercial drug 10-15 years down the road. Do you think that such use is also forbidden by the licence?

The datasets are deidentified, so that doesn't seem like a plausible rationale

The issue of monetizing is completely separate to de-identification.

Often sources of this type of medical data will give them to universities under the no-commerical-use condition.

The reason they do this is so that they can later monetize the dataset.

Often, no.

It's because if they charge for it the admin of having to pass money back to participating people is prohibitive.

Often you can't buy these datasets at any price.

Just look at how agitated people here are getting at the prospect of GitHub copilot using tiny code snippets from their work for potentially commercial works.

Then imagine it’s not your unique way to loop over a file in python, but your medical information.

There are definitely doctors who will space it out if you’re stable or do a phone refill

I think some tech health platforms like Capsule will even have a pharmacist call your doctor for a refill for you.

It means you need to pay your doctor and this company.

I have absolutely nothing against CGMs, but the author confounds measurement error (which can happen in both blood tests as well as subcutaneous measurement which a CGM does), thresholding on a population level (I doubt anyone thinks an A1c of 4.5 and 5.6 are the same), and weak evidence of impact in actual health outcomes. It’s fun in the same way a Fitbit/Apple Watch is fun, but I don’t think one should oversell it’s utility.

I think number of launches was used as a proxy for number of satellites launched in the last month - more satellites/launch shouldn't impact it that much.

Medical doctors at universities and medical schools generally make 50% of salaries for private practice.

Less, it’s not on label for aortic regurgitation, only aortic stenosis.