11–20 of 37 posts
This is generally an awesome idea. The value add is really a jumping off point that can equip you with enough understanding to begin to read about the issue overall. An additional glossary for terms most important to that research area would also be helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.hdphealth.com/2016/02/16/the-research-on-biopsie... Notice the disclaimer at the bottom. As well, we link to the research article itself in every scenario. At some point we should try to add a "Share with your doctor" button. Thanks for the feedback.
I think a niche certainly exists for your product... If you could manage to land an ad in AARP-The Magazine for instance, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at the response...that demographic is of an age where many common ailments begin to show up... I'd caution you to give the idea of adding a "Share with your doctor" option very careful thought before implementing it... Some physicians don't mind patients that…
Looks interesting. I'm curious about the ways a user can visualize the summarized information. Is it just via paragraphs (like in the one example on your site), bullet points or some other manner? Does each paragraph equal one sentence or do you look for hard-to-understand terms and only summarize those? On a side note, if any readers know of all the best/varied ways to summarize information ('manually', not via algo…
We've built a system that allows us to translate difficult to read research abstracts and convert them into 4 to 8 bullet point descriptions that are readable by the common person. It's like Blinkist, but for complex research. Our backend consists of a ton of med school students, PhD's, and researchers. I myself had an autoimmune disorder for 10 years, well I still have it, but I've been in remission for the last 2 y…
I think it's amusing that your backend is still human, because really you're just shifting the task onto others, not necessarily solving it. We've "solved it" per se on Experiment by getting good at training other scientists to get good at this. Unfortunately, that's also still pretty technically hard, but we've developed some editorial heuristics. Like a real NLP + UpGoerFive approach would be awesome and a real val…
"but probably very difficult."
Random thought: If this catches on in a big way, have you thought of how the system will deal with the fundamentally political nature of some areas of medical research? Real effort is going into trying to subvert this process at the source, so why not the summary?
Interesting! Random thought: If this catches on in a big way, have you thought of how the system will deal with the fundamentally political nature of some areas of medical research? Real effort is going into trying to subvert this process at the source, so why not the summary?
If you have any ideas we'd love to hear them though!
We've built a system that allows us to translate difficult to read research abstracts and convert them into 4 to 8 bullet point descriptions that are readable by the common person. It's like Blinkist, but for complex research. Our backend consists of a ton of med school students, PhD's, and researchers. I myself had an autoimmune disorder for 10 years, well I still have it, but I've been in remission for the last 2 y…
I think it's amusing that your backend is still human, because really you're just shifting the task onto others, not necessarily solving it. We've "solved it" per se on Experiment by getting good at training other scientists to get good at this. Unfortunately, that's also still pretty technically hard, but we've developed some editorial heuristics. Like a real NLP + UpGoerFive approach would be awesome and a real val…
One question: How do you deal with paper links that go to non-open access publications? Have you paid for the usual journal subscription bundles? Relying on crowdsourcing?
Interesting! Random thought: If this catches on in a big way, have you thought of how the system will deal with the fundamentally political nature of some areas of medical research? Real effort is going into trying to subvert this process at the source, so why not the summary?
We'll deal with that if it really catches on, but if that happens I'd say it's a better problem to have than no one wanting it at all :) If you have any ideas we'd love to hear them though!
I suspect you can make a nearly risk free bet that if there is a significant amount of money being made that depends on the results of a contentious issue in the existing science, there are deep problems in the related literature.