Category Archives: Technology and Informatics

Posts related to technology, gadgets, cloud, informatics, or just about anything that is/can be/plugs into a computer. Relationship to radiology optional.

Data is data

Data is the results section of a scientific paper.
Data is a graph on the dashboard.
Data is a powerful motivator when it puts what we already know about ourselves in numbers.
Data is necessarily biased because it cannot exist in a vacuum.
Data is rarely perfect or complete.
Data is the Wizard of Oz in whom we only see that which we desire to see.
Data is not meaning.
Data is not opinion.
Data is not a mirror mirror on the wall to reveal the hidden truth in it all.

At the end of the day, data is data. It’s people who write the Discussion sections.
People draw conclusions from analytics.
It’s people who create meanings.  People who form opinions.

Don’t confuse the two.

In search of better tools

Tools are supposed to make our lives better, easier, more connected.  The oldest tools came about because humans needed to overcome certain barriers.  The first caveman who invented the first stone knife was probably very popular – all these other guys are still tearing leather and meat by brute force probably all wanted one because it made their lives far easier.

At some point we started inventing – and wanting – tools that precede our needs, tools that we want before we need them.  Maybe this is a good thing.  If done correctly, this means we will never be left wanting for better functionality again: the invention always anticipates future demands.  Every once in a while, a game-changer comes into the market that makes this true.  More commonly, we are left with the promises of a better future, new dreams, which the new tool fails to deliver, which has the effect of creating new demands that now go unfulfilled. (And of course, the occasional invention that neither makes promises nor delivers results simply get forgotten.)

It follows, then, that in a world of a litany of mediocre new inventions, there is a high likelihood that we end up creating new needs rather than satiate them – I see an ad for X, I realize I have a need Y which X promises to do, I buy X to realize that it doesn’t do Y very well, but now I can’t un-realize / un-want Y.

Thus, the irony if our information age may be that sometimes consolidating our tools and admitting that “no, I do not need this functionality” might make us more content, or perhaps even more productive.

The Irony of Complexity

Anyone who has worked on a complex problem knows that simplicity is the result of many, many hours of hard work. 

  • Colin Dunno, Designer at Dropbox, in response to the question, “What is the need for all the world class designers at Dropbox, for a product that seemingly has zero complexity?”

Like a figure skater on ice, to score you have to do hard moves but make it look easy.  If the product of your complex work looks complex, then there’s room for improvement.

Healthcare has plenty of room to improve.

The Nature of Information Has Changed, and so Should Our Approach

If you are at least 25 years old, you would remember the days when everyone is trying to expedite the speed of information transfer.  Messages began with the courier services, first by horse, then by car.  Then they went digital.  The internet began with dial-up, when 56kbps was deemed state of the art, then broadband.  Then we decided that having to sit in front of a computer to transmit data is too slow.

Back then, when you get a wrong piece of information, it was usually because of timeliness.  Timely data was the business of newspapers, radios, and later television.

At some point, the speed of data transmission became near-instantaneous.

We had thought that faster information means better, but it may come at a cost.  Rapid information is raw, and sometimes inaccurate.  This is a common occurrence, but like car crashes relative to plane crashes, what made Twitter newsworthy is the few times when it nailed the right information seconds after an event, not the hundreds of thousands of times when it misfires.

Like breathing air, bad information has become so commonplace in Twitter and blogs that inaccuracy is invisible to us – we easily process the concept and underlying logic behind why rapid information is sometimes inaccurate, we just don’t think about it often.

And yes, I am aware of the hypocritical nature of using a blog post to divulge this argument.  As it turns out, the burden of verification is on you; I’m just exercising my first amendment rights. 🙂

The Irony of Consolidating Innovation

Innovation competition is a common mechanism for developing novel products or or otherwise encouraging creative people to do what they do best – create.  Entire organizations are formed around innovation (IDEO being a high-profile example).

The logic that high rewards attract high performers is reasonable.  And consolidating resources to fund two critically acclaimed novel inventions arguably makes more sense than dividing up the limited funds among 20+ ideas with variable viability.

But these assumptions only work if one makes the assumption that the inception of an idea is a planned process with an “innovative index” directly proportional to effort.  Only then can one make the conclusion that bigger rewards draws better ideas – it does so because people try harder.

But what if creativity is not an effort-dependent activity?  What if innovation, like chemical reactions in equilibrium, only appears predictable on the macroscopic level but is in fact sporadic and dependent on some lucky combination of kinetic creative energy colliding against one another?

It then comes as no surprise that many NIH-funded projects are sustaining innovations, those creating incremental improvements to existing technology.  2% improvement in blood pressure control.  Statistically significant but clinically undetectable improvements in cholesterol control.   Seven Tesla MRIs.  Sustaining innovations, by definition, build on a solid precedence and have higher probability of showing positive results, albeit by a smaller magnitudes.

Disruptive innovations are the smartphones, the PCR machine, the first AML chemotherapy.  They wield the ability to change entire industries; they are also rare.  They are one-in-a-million chemical reactions that require collision at a precise angle with the right kinetic energy.  One might even say that at the start, the inception of a disruptive innovations is sporadic, a lucky accident.

If earth-shaking novel ideas occur by chemical reaction, then it may be clear what we as a society must do to foster them.  The chemist does not give her molecules incentives and rewards for making a carbon-carbon bond.  Instead, the chemist selects the ideal solvent to make the reaction possible, offers a catalyst to lower the activation energy, and gently heats the primordial soup of innovation.

Then she waits, for above all, innovation takes time.  Innovation can’t be made to happen; it can only be allowed to happen.

3 reasons I went back to OneNote

I let Evernote Premium expire in December after being disappointed by some of its qualities. But the problem is this: I had clearly subscribed to EN Premium for a reason – with the new void I must now find a new solution.

Here are three reasons why I decided to take up OneNote after leaving EverNote Premium – and why other alternatives leave more to be desired.

1. Formatting is Preserved When Clipping

Evernote is a good tool for clipping web articles.  It had one shortcoming – after clipping a lot of the fancy HTML/RSS (i.e. formatting) is lost, leaving only the images and text intact.  When clipping articles later reading or for recipes this tendency does not create problems.  But if you wish to mark up an article or otherwise preserve it for future reference, this becomes a problem.

Evernote butchers formatting when extracting article text.

One workaround is simply to first print into PDF format, then mark up the file using a supporting reader as one would a science article in PDF format.

In OneNote this workaround is unnecessary – the task can be accomplished simply by “Send to OneNote” from printing screen, then the article is available for mark-up immediately.

2. Annotate Anywhere on Images or Text

Because of my work, I often mark up radiographs and CT images downloaded from teaching files (copy an image, type out the expected findings, and draw an arrow to the appropriate place on the image). There are plenty of workarounds – for example, one could simply use Photoshop to edit the images – but because the volume of information is rather vast, efficiency becomes critical.

This is where OneNote provides a unique value proposition.

Send to OneNote plays well with images, text, or a combination – either for annotating actual image filese as above, or for old scientific articles whose PDF format is simply image scans of the paper format.  It is often difficult/impossible to notate such files.

OneNote’s iconic “type anywhere” function allows typing text in an arbitrary location much as one might draw arrows or text boxes on PowerPoint, so that there is no reliance on the importing document’s formatting.  Once the images are properly highlighted, additional notes can be added right beneath them and the page can be re-organized like any other OneNote page.  Creating a proof-of-concept page as shown below takes merely seconds.

notation

This feature is available on the free OneNote apps on mobile as well as the SkyDrive web client.

OneDrive Synchronization

OneNote synchronizes automatically with OneDrive, the Microsoft variant of Dropbox / Google Drive.  The method of synchronization is peculiar because OneNote synchronizes only the modified portion of each notebook, and it attempts to synchronize in real-time.

This means that shared notebooks can be edited simultaneously and the updates sent to all collaborators in real-time (much like Google Docs).  It also makes conflicting copies nearly impossible to create.

Microsoft made an excellent choice of including OneNote 2013 in all Office 2013 installations. With increasing popularity of Google Docs and Evernote, Microsoft had to up its game.  Even without the rest of the office suite, at $49 stand-alone price, OneNote is on par with Evernote Premium in price.