Summary: A Web 2.0 human user prompted a Web 3.0 LLM analysis of a PaJR case report and participatory medical cognition EMR that already contained Web 3.0 driven analysis of the patient's problems over an year. Transcripts of the prompt and it's subsequent share into another Web 2.0 forum are as below:
[29/07, 15:38] : Web 2.0 hu1:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6884f3f9-ad08-8013-a0f5-86180eea4837
This is what chatgpt agent gave
[29/07, 15:38] Web 2.0 hu1: Can anyone verify if this makes any sense?
[29/07, 15:39]Web 2.0 hu1: Personally very skeptical of AI workflow, but I am realising that you all are very comfortable. So I am learning to trust somewhat. Please see if something like this is useful?
ChatGPT said:Sure, I'll open the provided blog post and analyze the data from the perspective of a senior researcher in information systems. I'll provide my analysis once I have reviewed the content.
Attached is your requested analysis report on the PaJR case report for a 44‑year‑old female with diabetes, corneal dystrophy and biliary pain. The report examines the data quality, communication patterns and information systems implications of the PaJR platform, and provides insights into clinical care coordination, patient engagement and privacy considerations. Please let me know if you need any further refinements.
Analysis of PaJR Case Report for 44‑year‑old female with diabetes, corneal dystrophy and biliary pain
Background of the PaJR platform
PaJR (Patient Journey Record) is a blogging‑style platform used by clinicians and students to document complex patient cases. Case posts contain de‑identified histories, laboratory values, imaging, medication lists and chat‑like exchanges between multiple doctors and the patient attendant (PA). Each line in the post is time‑stamped and attributed to a user (PPM1‑PPM7 denote different physician roles). The open and interactive format allows real‑time supervision of patients whose care spans different hospitals. The case studied here was posted on 29 December 2024 and follows a 44‑year‑old woman from West Bengal with a long history of diabetes, eye surgery, weight loss and biliary‑type abdominal pain. The post documents almost ten days of interactions, including diet discussions, CT scans, medication changes and planning for invasive diagnostics.
From an information systems perspective, PaJR represents a crowd‑sourced electronic case record: structured data (vital signs, medication schedules) is embedded within unstructured narrative and images. The record is shared among clinicians and the patient attendant, enabling asynchronous consultation. The richness of the data also poses challenges in data quality, standardisation and privacy, which are analysed below.
Summary of clinical data
| Data element | Information observed |
|---|---|
| Demographic | 44‑year‑old female from West Bengal |
| Past medical history | Diabetes (diagnosed ~4 years earlier after antibiotics for dental infection) and partial keratoplasty for corneal dystrophy in Jan 2024. Reports weight loss (≈10 kg in two months), loss of appetite and intermittent fever. |
| Current symptoms | Severe, steady pain in right upper quadrant/epigastrium lasting ≥30 minutes; episodes recur every few days and disrupt daily activities; pain worsens with meals and may be accompanied by intermittent hypoxia and palpitationspajrcasereporter. |
| Physical findings | Murphy’s sign positive on deep inspirationpajrcasereporter. |
| Investigations and diagnostic reasoning | The clinicians considered Rome II criteria for biliary‑type pain because the patient experiences severe steady pain lasting ≥30 min, occurring several times in the last year, interfering with daily activities, and with no structural abnormalities on imagingpajrcasereporter. |
| Treatment | The patient was on glimepiride and metformin for diabetes. In late December the physicians adjusted the regimen: glimepiride 1 mg before breakfast, metformin 500 mg after lunch, and continued bisoprololpajrcasereporter. |
| Monitoring | Blood pressure and blood glucose were to be measured every two hours during waking hourspajrcasereporter. |
| Dietary guidance | The clinicians provided a ‘healthy plate’ diet link and advised balancing grains with fruits/vegetablespajrcaserepor |
Information‑systems analysis
1. Data quality and structure
The PaJR case record mixes structured clinical data with unstructured narrative, images and chat. Vital signs and medication lists are clearly stated (e.g., blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg and glucose readings), but they are embedded within conversation logs rather than stored in discrete fields. For instance, the regimen change is communicated through a chat message instructing nurses to obtain a strip of glimepiride and metforminpajrcasereporter.
The platform does not enforce standardised terminologies (e.g., SNOMED CT). For example, the patient’s diagnosis is described as “type 2 sphincter of Oddi dysfunction”pajrcasereporter.
2. Coordination and communication
The case highlights complex coordination among multiple roles—PPM 1 (primary physician), PPM 3 (resident), PPM 4–7 (nurses/administrators), and the patient attendant (PA). Communication is asynchronous: for instance, PPM 1 instructs PPM 3 to monitor blood pressure and glucose every two hourspajrcasereporter.
3. Patient engagement and remote monitoring
PaJR encourages patient participation. The attendant asks multiple questions about diet and symptoms and uploads pictures of meals and medications. PPM 1 uses these images to provide personalised dietary advice, emphasising portion balancepajrcasereporter.
4. Data privacy and consent
The platform acknowledges privacy concerns. PPM 1 deletes uploaded reports that showed patient identifierspajrcasereporter.
5. Clinical decision‑support and evidence integration
The platform links to external evidence such as the Rome II diagnostic criteria for biliary pain and a healthy‑plate diet resourcepajrcasereporter.
6. Potential research opportunities
Text and image mining: The rich narrative and images can be used to develop natural‑language processing models for extracting clinical entities, temporal relations and nutritional intake. A labelled dataset from PaJR posts could train models to identify symptom trajectories and triggers.
Process mining: The case includes timestamps and sequential actions (e.g., ordering CT, changing medications). Process‑mining techniques could map care pathways and identify bottlenecks, such as delays in obtaining investigations or adjustments in therapy.
User‑experience evaluation: Observing how clinicians and patients interact with the platform provides insights into usability. The need to remind users not to post identifiable informationpajrcasereporter.
blogspot.com and to clarify tasks suggests a learning curve. Surveys or qualitative studies could assess satisfaction and identify features that enhance adoption. Digital therapeutics: The platform’s dietary coaching could be augmented with decision‑support algorithms that analyse nutrient composition and glycaemic impact. Integration with continuous glucose monitors could allow real‑time feedback.
Conclusion
The PaJR case report of a 44‑year‑old female with diabetes, weight loss and biliary pain illustrates the strengths and limitations of a crowd‑sourced electronic patient record. The platform captures rich qualitative data and supports collaboration across care teams and institutions. However, the mixture of unstructured narrative, free‑text instructions and image uploads poses challenges for data extraction, privacy and timely decision‑making. From an information‑systems standpoint, future iterations should incorporate structured data fields, standard terminologies, secure access controls and automated task management. Leveraging AI for natural‑language understanding and decision support could transform PaJR from a digital log into a robust clinical information system that improves patient outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment