14th IMSH Audience Participation (January 27, 2014)

Contents

  1. 14th IMSH Audience Participation (January 27, 2014)
    1. Questions from IMSH/SSH Community
    2. Comments and Suggestions from IMSH/SSH Community
    3. Panel Discussion Summary

Questions from IMSH/SSH Community

If you have a Question you'd like us to answer, please post your question below here using the following format:
Your name - Question

Questions start below here:

Comments and Suggestions from IMSH/SSH Community

If you have comments or suggestions you'd like to share with us, please post your question below here using the following format:
Your name - Comment and/or Suggestion

Comments/Suggestions start below here:

Panel Discussion Summary

Panel Attendants:

Link to panel presentation: https://simtk.org/websvn/wsvn/cpms/doc/presentations/IMSH_Presentation_2014.pptx

Discussion summary:

Richard mentioned www.sim-summit.org as a resource for further connection that conducted a survey. The CPMS committee may wish to learn from this and other experiences. within that url is a link to a M&S Body of Knowledge (BoK) that has been developed over the past decade or so, with contributors from academia, industry, and government. direct link: http://www.sim-summit.org/BoK07/index.htm

Richard suggested an iterative survey that shows the change of guidelines with time.

There was talk about Living document and it was mentioned that the wiki technology used by the committee supports the concept of a living document.

Suggestion to look at IEEE and ASME standards and see how they might apply.

The topic of categorization of models was brought up by several attendants. In this context the planned survey of models the committee intends to conduct may be relevant and collaboration between organizations may be necessary. Related to this was the idea that how the models are presented (e.g., by medical categories or not) may determine if the medical educator adopts them.

The language gap between disciplines was discussed. David was interested in further information to help this effort. Here is a link hat will help guide how to use the wiki to modify our glossary: https://simtk.org/websvn/wsvn/cpms/doc/multimedia/CPMS_Glossary_wiki_example.wmv

Here is a link to the current glossary: http://wiki.simtk.org/cpms/Glossary_and_Definitions

The attendant discussed adoption issues of modeling. It remained an open question yet several ideas were discussed:

Anthony avoids complexity and claims this helps adoption from his experience. Points out difficulty in striking the right balance between simplifying so model is easy to use but retains sufficient complexity to generate useful results. iPhone is a great example.

David: the way packaging models are important.

Further discussion continued around simplicity and complexity and it seemed that some models are more complex. The question was how can those be adopted. Some models required careful instruction and support.

Need to characterize assumptions in a way that people understand. Practically, what is the impact of a particular assumption?

Think about distinction between activities that can only be done in real-life versus what can only be done in simulation versus what can be done in both. Richard has used this conceptual (and practical) decomposition in simulators systems design development processes.

John suggested that some Models you can be used only with a prescription - just like pharmaceuticals or procedures. Nice analogy. You have some drugs that are over-the-counter, which you can take on your own. Some drugs need a prescription from the doctor before you can use them. Some drugs are so dangerous that you need to go in for weekly tests while you are on them. Models and simulations may similarly have different use scenarios, where clinicians and educators may or may not need assistance from the modelers to use them.

There was an understanding that development of models sometime requires multiple disciplines cooperating. The attendant of the panel have some examples of physicians crossing into engineering fields and engineers crossing into medical fields. It seems there was a consensus formed that cross fertilization and learning is necessary.

Suggestion to get the learner involved in developing the model. May be useful to connect with Richard to get perspective on the development on NASA V&V standards.

The topic of Simulationist as a discipline was brought up in that context - combining disciplines under a certain name.

Anthony C. Hunt from the committee advisory board has a diagram showing the differences between engineering and life science models. See figure 1 in this poster: http://www.imagwiki.nibib.nih.gov/mediawiki/images/1/1b/Hunt%27s_MSM_Rel_Gnd_Poster.pdf

With this regard, the point that medical/biological people are more comfortable with uncertainty that engineers was brought up. And a discussion on what is good enough model was started and how medical people define what is good.

Bossou described the idea that medical people start testing from a single healthy 20 year old person and they add complicity to problem and check each time if the concept holds.

There was a representation of anesthesiologist in the attendants and there seemed to be a consensus that some issues are subjective. For example how does one model model pain?

Christian from France had a different international perspective towards the conflict between the precision and uncertainty: he mentioned that Medicine in France is considered as an art and relies on perception.

It was suggested that perception would be added as a keyword in the committee definitions.

The issue of variability of biomedical biomarkers has been brought up for discussion. With this regard Anthony mentioned that - a certain thing have to be right and correct for the physician. Jacob mentioned that this is subjective to the physician and a model should match the perspective of many physicians to be credible and this is a challenge that required data. Anthony's emphasis was on the need to create believability. Lealem mentioned that tracking the use history of a model could lend credibility to the model.

Richard mentioned that the Diving community collects data about extreme physiological points to use as part of validation. Also mentioned that Undersea Medical Officers ('UMOs'), who are diver trained physicians, are a part of collaborative teams of diving professionals who oversee and conduct R&D on diving limits and fly-after-dive limits.

Anthony mentioned the following database and later sent a link: http://www.airwayregistry.org.au/

IMSH Community Participation (last edited 2016-05-04 22:03:12 by localhost)