HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Start-up computer geeks hope to cure cancer (Interesting article)

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/27/2015 3:53 PM (GMT 0)
about a couple of twenty-something computer experts starting up a company (Flatiron Health) whose sole objective will be to find a cancer cure. From the article:

"Flatiron’s thesis is the following: Currently only a small fraction of the cancer patient treatment data is being collected systematically. That collection largely takes place in randomized clinical trials, which cover about 4% of adult cancer patients (though estimates vary). By organizing and standardizing much of the information for the remaining 96% or so and then offering that data back to physicians, Flatiron thinks it can help doctors come up with better treatment options."

I guess the interesting thing about this is that this company's proposed sole objective is to work on finding a cancer cure. Hadn't heard of that before about a computer start-up company.

Well, maybe they'll be successful and maybe not, but it's at least nice to know that somebody is at least trying this kind of approach.

The article:

fortune.com/2014/07/24/can-big-data-cure-cancer/
Posted 1/27/2015 4:14 PM (GMT 0)
A modern Alchemist! Is it not a just another Nomogram? I respect their goal!!

Cheers, Doug
Posted 1/27/2015 9:09 PM (GMT 0)
Without data, all you have is an opinion.

I like the approach.
I'm not sure how they intend to make money on it though.
J
Posted 1/27/2015 9:29 PM (GMT 0)
While it would be nice to see this succeed, but it likely won't. They're only working on one side of the problem and haven't really identified who is going to use the data. Providing it to 'doctors' is nice, but to really affect treatment it also needs to be seen by researchers, regulators, patients and a host of others - all who likely to argue about the validity of the data. Company's like Google and others are likely to throw 100s of millions at the project, if for no other reason than to say, "We're working on curing cancer." Sounds great at the annual shareholders meetings and in press releases.

Still, while they might not solve the cancer thing, they might come up with other interesting technologies - like how to efficiently convert paper records into computer data (yes, that is still a big problem in some places) or how to translate data between dispirit medical record systems.

Hate to be cynical here, but I see big data projects like this all the time. Most quietly fade away. This is one, we'd like to see work but thinking through the problems, and I just don't see how they can get to even 20% of the data is out there - records availability, patient privacy concerns, doctor cooperation, normalizing the data into meaningful data points, and the funding for the database engineers and others (and 100 million in high tech terms isn't much - you can burn through that in 1 to 2 years, 3 if you control the scale of the project). Really, really a long shot.

But that's how we high tech types make our living - generate grandiose ideas, get Google and Microsoft to pay for it, fail in 2 years and then do it all again. If one in ten of these weird ideas work out, we're happy and take our stock options to buy a house and a new Tesla car.

Andrew
Posted 1/28/2015 12:06 AM (GMT 0)
Does more raw data lead to better understanding? Like it or not, peer review of carefully collected and tested data is still the gold standard of research. Hearsay data and unfiltered commentary may generate a lot or raw data, but does it really mean anything? The whole point of clinical studies is to collect good data and test it.
Posted 1/28/2015 12:14 AM (GMT 0)
If in addition to collection of raw data, they are able to come up with ways for researchers to easily manipulate the data (Ina good way), to create broader based retrospectve studies, it might be useful not saying these guys will cure cancer, but it might further the interests of research by turning a lot of these studies of relatively small cohorts, into more widespread, and thus more valid or credible studies
Posted 1/28/2015 12:23 AM (GMT 0)
Must admit I like the idea.

Recently heard that there is a 10-15 year Delay between Research findings and Clinicians using the data. Many of you blokes here could educate an MD or two about PCa because you read, disseminate and discuss the issues - some live and breathe PCa support.

A lot of criticism has been levelled at the plethora of cancer research with no real Fundamental change to prevention and intervention. Paul Davis, an astrophysicist, has been saying (not verbatim) that

"Standard cancer therapy – a mix of surgery, radiation and chemical toxins – has changed little in decades. Survival rates overall have improved only modestly or not at all. Life extension through therapy is mostly a rearguard action against the inevitable, measured in weeks or months rather than years, confounding the incessant media hype about ‘cancer breakthroughs’.

Tend to agree with him. Lets give these Cancer Geeks a chance!
.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply