Google To Offer Better Medical Advice When You Search Your Symptoms (cnbc.com) 104
An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNBC: Google said Monday that it will be improving its catalog of searched Googled health symptoms by adding information on related health conditions that have been vetted by the Mayo Clinic and Harvard Medical School. For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache." When it comes to general searches like "headache," the company will also give an overview description along with information on self-treatment options or symptoms that warrant a doctor's visit. In Google's official blog post, the company said roughly 1 percent of the searches on Google, which equates to millions of searches, are related to symptoms users are researching. However, search results can be confusing, and result in "unnecessary anxiety and stress," Google said. It plans to use its Knowledge Graph feature, which contains high-quality medical information collected from doctors, to enhance search results.
Re: (Score:2)
They release appointments for the next day at 12:30pm and they go very fast...
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I attempted to get a doctor's appointment I was told "we are scheduling two months out..." & my healthcare insurance is "premium". It should be premium for what I pay for it. I had to get a new doctor last year. After navigating the labyrinthine system I was able to find a doctor that was somewhat in my part of town & of course, 6+ weeks for the first appointment.
De-fund the shit out of a program, then point at it & say "look! It doesn't work!"
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to see a different doctor. or go to a local urgent care center. The real trick is to allow RN, NP, and PA a little more freedom in the health care institution and allow them to treat many of the simple problems. Without having to go to an expensive dr for every little issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't single-payer medicine GREAT!!!
As opposed to the 2-3 month waits for specialist appointments I have to endure here in the land of the free, yes.
When a doctor is affiliated with hospital A, it doesn't matter whether a doctor at hospital B is available sooner. Doctors get penalized for sending too many patients out of their affiliate networks.
When everybody is affiliated with the national health service, that ceases to become a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Cool - so that solves one problem while creating how many more?
Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you think I consider this a new "problem."
It's only a problem in that some providers don't want to reduce their pricing so that they can be part of a larger network (like UHC.) Why would they suddenly want to do this just because their is now one payor?
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, probably because if there is only one game in town, you either play that game or hope that there are enough people willing to shell out of their own pocket for service. Good luck with that. I too have no primary physician like grandparent. Mine dropped out. And there are not that many that take my plan in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem
Personally my coverage has a huge network of providers & I do not need a referral to a specialist. I can go nearly anywhere. But I'll still wait 2-3 months.
IMO single payer is really about getting rid of health insurance companies. Fucking parasites. Everyone needs healthcare, if not you this year, your mom or your child.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I got the idea you saw that is a "new problem":
Kind of like how Obama care solved the pre-existing issue while creating entire new sets of problem
Personally my coverage has a huge network of providers & I do not need a referral to a specialist. I can go nearly anywhere. But I'll still wait 2-3 months.
IMO single payer is really about getting rid of health insurance companies. Fucking parasites. Everyone needs healthcare, if not you this year, your mom or your child.
My insurance isn't that great but I never have to wait 2-3 months to get in to see a specialist and that is with needing a referral from my PCP.
I don't see government as any less parasitical than insurance companies (or more caring).
In fact, when I worked at a DME company, Medicare was the hardest to work with unless you were a company with a lot of capital to be able to wait months before getting paid. A lot of our smaller competitors were destroyed simply by not having enough assets to wait months (most
Re: (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2016 @06:48AM (#52358049)
trying to see a Doctor in the UK is an exercise in frustration in trying to navigate the labyrinthine system set up to manage their 48 hour waiting targets.... you have to be really dedicated to push yourself forward to get a same day appointment... if lucky, you'll get a telephone appointment or else be seen by the practice nurse
They release appointments for the next day at 12:30pm and they go very fast...
Isn't single-payer medicine GREAT!!!
I assume you are an American anonymous coward. I wonder when the last time was that you needed to get health care in the American free market system.
http://archderm.jamanetwork.co... [jamanetwork.com]
The Accuracy of Dermatology Network Physician Directories Posted by Medicare Advantage Health Plans in an Era of Narrow Networks
Jack S. Resneck Jr, Aaron Quiggle, Michael Liu, BS3; David W. Brewster
JAMA Dermatol. Published online October 29, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3902
48.9% of physicians were reachable, accepted the
Re: (Score:1)
It's odd you have such a hard time wherever you are in the UK. I've lived in Devon, several areas of London and Bristol and in all those places same day appointments were very easy to get and simply required calling the practice at a specified time in the morning (usually between 8 and 9) and they would allocate you a time. And if you missed that lots of practices have evening appointments which get released sometime in the afternoon. My current practice even guarantees you a phone appointment if you urgent
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How about telling users to get off their asses and go see a doctor rather than self-medicating...
You mean get an appointment and let the doctor google the symptoms for you?
Re: (Score:2)
As much as self-medicating can be bad, seeing a doctor for a common cold is a waste of time for everyone, unless you are trying to get a sick day.
It's like my family doctor. We live near the beach, and every summer, there are endless queues of people with sunburns and minor heat illnesses. Come on, do you really need a doctor to tell you that you have to hydrate, protect yourself from the sun and maybe get you some Biafine?
Re: (Score:1)
If it helps APK realize she needs medication, it would be awesome.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
filter out pseudoscience (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can filter out all the pseudoscience waffle (Anti-vax , quantum-foo, etc) it might actually do wonders for peoples scientific literacy, especially at a time when good science can mean life or death.
Re: filter out pseudoscience (Score:5, Insightful)
There aren't many people out there who are truly opposed to vaccinations. Please don't misrepresent our beliefs. We simply understand that vaccines have side effects. In adults, vaccines can cause soreness, fever, and nausea. Occasionally there are more serious side effects of vaccines, though these generally are rare in adults. One side effect that can be far more serious is that a person could have an allergic reaction to the vaccine. That can happen with any vaccine, though it's not especially common. Generally speaking, the side effects are either so rare or benign relative to actually getting the illness that the vaccine is worth it. In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines. I don't think most people truly oppose vaccinations, but rather are genuinely concerned about the side effects. And that's also true with medicines, which can sometimes have some very serious side effects. Please don't misrepresent our views as pseudoscience.
You seem to be surprisingly rational for someone holding that view, unusually even, so I'll make an attempt. Skepticism is always warranted a little bit, but it only works properly if you have actual concrete research to back it up. Can you even name the specific vaccine you're talking about? "Strongly linked" implies their was a research study done on it, at least to me. Can you please present that study? If there is one, I certainly don't know of it.
Second off, please remember that your doctors are professionally trained, have years of experience, and from what I understand, it's not that uncommon to have written an actual thesis as one. You are, almost certainly, not even trained at all, much less anywhere near that level, so you should be very skeptical of your own opinion because you are going to have a much narrower base of knowledge. Vaccines do have a chance of allergic reactions and such - but do you know the potential consequences of not getting them? Take the chickenpox one, for example. I'm not aware of allergic reactions to it, since I never needed the vaccine, but if you ignore the vaccine and your kids don't get it when they're young, they're at risk for getting chickenpox later on in life. Chickenpox as a kid is about as dangerous as a cold, but in an adult, it can be lethal if not properly treated, and even when it is it's much harder on your body. You have a 1-in-a-million chance or so with most vaccines of getting a reaction, but your odds of getting chickenpox are not that low at all, especially if you work anywhere near children.
Ultimately, please, ask your doctor. It's fine to be skeptical of something, so ask them why - they will have fully explored this issue, and will be capable of answering any questions you might have. That's, after all, they're job - they're here to help treat you, and they'll be able to explain to you the risks. Feel free to deliberate after them, but given that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, allergic reactions are extremely rare, and the trace amounts of some chemicals is so small as to be medically insignificant, the very small risks of a vaccine far outweigh the potential risks of catching something like chickenpox or meningitis, for which both death is a possible outcome. Please, for your children's sake, ask your doctor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: filter out pseudoscience (Score:5, Insightful)
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. I am very pro-vaccine but I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. They aren't pharmacologists. They just prescribe the stuff.
"They just prescribe stuff" is far more than you or I know. Why the hell isn't everyone a programmer? There can't be much more to it than just logical thinking, after all. Same with architecture - what the hell can there be to designing buildings? I can build one out of legos pretty well, it's just on a bigger scale.
If you're on Slashdot, you're more likely than most to have at least a little technical experience, so I'd like to point you out the person that we all hate, the technically illiterate manager. You know, the one who can't understand why you can't debug a program in 3 hours, why delays can possibly happen, and why the hell they pay you what they do to type on a keyboard all day. What do you do that an outsourced programmer in India can't? That probably offends you, of course you do valuable work, and someone who is on average poorer trained than you is going to output poorer work. After all, not everyone's fit to be a programmer, right?
Then why the hell is it different for doctors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you make the comparison of doctors to programmers. How many programmers do know that aren't that good at their job? What percentage of your graduating class was highly skilled? What percentage was mediocre or just barely getting through? Do you really think that distribution is much different in medical school? One thing that I have noticed is that many doctors will blindly believe anything they are told in medical school without questioning it. Because of that, they fall behind in skill and depth of knowledge. This seems to be particularly true in the U.S., where they are all too happy to recommend unnecessary surgery for infants and 90 yr. olds, and oversubscribe antibiotics, opioids and other medications. This often results in causing more harm than good.
Yeah, that's true. But as the AC mentioned here (I'd mod him up if I hadn't already participated in this conversation), medical school has a much higher barrier for graduation, and doctors perform to much higher standards. The medical field actually used to work like the IT industry - look back about two hundred years or so in the US, and you'll see what I mean.
You do mention a valid point - doctors these days tend to overprescribe medicine. However, that's not specific to the US. Furthermore, I am advoc
Re: filter out pseudoscience (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been misdiagnosed by doctors multiple times. And been scheduled to take expensive tests that were contraindicated, or medication that also was contraindicated. I expect many if not most people just go along.
Internet and libraries have provided help where doctors haven't. And internet and libraries don't have a several months wait to get an appointment, and are never consistently late when you do have one.
For me, the only value doctors have is the ability to prescribe medication and lab tests I can't order myself, and do surgeries I can't do myself.
And they're arrogant, so the trick is to steer and nudge them in the right direction and make them think that they came up with the plans and diagnoses. Much like with mid-level management in general, which I suppose they are.
Otherwise, taking your body to a physician is like taking your short stroke server to a Best Buy "Geek Squad" for service. They know just enough to cause damage to anything out of the ordinary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they are arrogant is because people just go along with them. I know several doctors and surgeons personally. They are a bit like IT people living in an ivory tower within their profession. And a surgeon is in no way middle management.
Are you quite sure they don't just seem arrogant because of the way they are being forced to respond to your attitude. I do IT consulting. Usually middle management brings us in to help solve a problem they don't feel their support team can handle, but after the introductions are over that is usually who we are working with. Sometimes I encounter really sharp guys who really deserve the confidence of management and should been listened to / allowed to run with solving the problems on their own. Sometime
Re: (Score:2)
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all.
Well, it means they know some things that someone without training or experience does. If I'm hiring someone to write a program for me, I'm going to pick the guy with a reputable CS degree and a few years of successful experience over a guy who says he's really smart and "knows computers" but has never written a line of code or has any idea what a binary tree or a hash map are, or why he might care. Likewise, if I have a medical issue I'm going to hire someone who spent a few years studying the body and how
MD training for vaccine (Score:2)
I am an *MD* (though I mostly work in research).
You put way too much faith in doctors. Just because someone is "professionally trained" or has "years of experience" doesn't mean anything at all. {...} I am always amazed at how people think doctors know something special about vaccines just because they went to medical school. {...} They just prescribe the stuff.
We don't only prescribe, we are also trained how to react in case of of strong reaction (e.g.: allergies).
Though in some jurisdiction, the same could also be handled by paramedics.
(Also, we do get basic training in pharmacology. If some of my peers are too stupid to actually study it correctly, that's an entire different matter, though...)
more arguments (Score:2)
In additions to all the arguments you've given:
- there's also the problem of herd immunity.
the more people got a vaccine against some disease, the more difficulty this disease has to find the next "free" host to infect. Beyond a certain percentage of vaccinated people, the disease can't spread across the population because it almost never find a nearby infectable host.
Conversely under a certain percentage of vaccinated people, the disease can roam freely among the population.
Refusing to get a vaccine not on
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, there is a link between autism and vaccines, vaccines are the straw that can break the camels back. Autism is the result of a hyperactive immune response. If one is predisposed to such an immune response, vaccines can trigger the response by ramping up the immune system beyond the genetic/epigenetic threshold.
That is pure nonsense. Autism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the immune system at all, or you'd see people with compromised immune systems also exhibit something. Furthermore, your immune system does not even have a "genetic threshold" - your immune system is controlled almost entirely by chemicals, not directly by genetics.
Re: (Score:3)
You sound pretty reasonable right up until...
In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism.
If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk. Your views are not pseudoscience, because pseudoscience is, by definition, claims about things which cannot be tested. Your views are unscientific; they have been tested, and there is absolutely no evidence to support them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk.
You're saying that as if it were a bad thing.
Risk is good - it's a prime driver of evolution. Too many people survive to reproduce for evolution to be effective.
Vaccines are bad for humanity in the long run because they're effective and safe. "Survival of everybody" (but especially mine) doesn't select for those best able to adapt and resist diseases. So when vaccine resistant strains come along a few generations down the line, a much larger portion of the population are unable to resist them.
If we wan
Re: (Score:2)
If we want humans in general (and not just our own) to improve in the long run, pay bonuses to those who survive diseases.
Humanity has long since passed the stage of evolution where natural selection weeds out people with poor eye sight, asthma, or susceptibility to treatable diseases. None of these traits harm a person's ability to contribute at the highest levels of society.
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
Yeah man, the US and Europe are totally stagnant and degenerate societies. Let's go to one where only the fittest survive, only the most intelligent, strongest, smartest people can. Let's go to Somolia! Why, they must practically be super human, enduring everything from a desert climate to a drug trade to a civil war to extreme poverty.
You forgot that evolution only applies to immediate risks - traits that are physically likely to kill you right here and now. Humans don't have natural selection anymore,
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
The human species is basically done evolving by natural means. Some time in the next 100 years we will start genetic engineering on humans, and guided evolution will begin. This period of genetic stagnation will not last long.
Re: (Score:3)
In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism. The mechanisms for this aren't fully understood, but there is a strong link with some vaccines.
That's a weird way of saying "I am delusional and can't be bothered with doing actual research on that matter".
Re: (Score:1)
So, basically what you're saying is, you think it is okay to risk bringing back Measles as a common childhood killer because you don't want your little snowflake to have an owwie in her arm for a couple of days, or to suffer some other minor, temporary inconvenience...
Fuck you. Fuck you and your anti-vaxxer moron cohorts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypochonders and Google, M.D. (Score:3, Funny)
For example, if you type "headache on one side," Google will offer up a list of associated conditions like "migraine," "common cold" or "tension headache."
But people will still be picking the "brain tumor" of that list of possible conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, oblivious to the fact that the brain lacks pain receptors.
Now, I wonder what happens when I type in the symptoms of an actual CNS tumor.
Prediction (Score:2)
Now, I wonder what happens when I type in the symptoms of an actual CNS tumor.
I predict that once this google subsystem will be in production (well, it's google, so probably just a later "beta" stage, only better debugged and tuned).
- it will correctly list tumors among the probable cause (along with other plausible CNS diseases - e.g.: vascular - depending on symptoms list)
- people will still pick-up the weird case-report where it was due to some environmental poisoning that's mentioned once after 10 pages of search-results. And sue the City for trying to brain-control them with sai
headache (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It has been an official illness registered by the American Psychiatric Association. But the environmentalists and already befallen gay-ists have exerted pressure to un-mark it. The gays because they are gay and the environmentalists because they want to destroy any human life on earth to "preserve" it.
An irrational and intense fixation on a group that has no impact on your life, along with unsubstantiated statements that are soundly incorrect, is far more of a sign of mental distress than "gayism."
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope Trump will get president so that he makes people like you shut up. You harm our national integrity. Look how it has ended in orlando, here gay-ism has turned a peaceful young man with a family into a brutal killer who has killed fellow gay-ists. Most of the gays end up being peaceful, but it may also escalate like in this case. Its a matter of national security.
They need help why do you deny them that help.
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder. Claims events happened that can be demonstrably proven not to have - hallucinations. Refuses to read another's viewpoint - narcissistic disorder. Belief that gay people are out to get you - severe paranoria. Buddy, if you have pills, please go and take them, your doctor prescribes medicine for a reason.
You have an interesting viewpoint though (stupid, but curious). Those gay people were Americans, and the guy who kille
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong. Islam has greatly advanced his illness. After all, mohammad was a pedophile. Also, Islam was the source for his phantasies as you correctly said. But in this particular case, him being gay-ist played a greater role than him being a muslim.
It was a radical islamic terrorist attack executed by a mentally ill gay person.
Ah, so him being gay was more dangerous then him being muslim? Then humor me, why would he attack other gay people? If gays were self-exterminating, then wouldn't they all be dead by now? Your delusions are fascinating. Tell me, how do the Chinese factor into this? Since they manufactured most of the products he likely touched, did their inherent chinese-ish also hijack his brain too? How about me? We were both American citizens. Since I am a "stupid overweight fag", as you so eloquently put it, did my evid
Re: (Score:2)
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.
Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...
Re: (Score:2)
Posting multiple posts pretending to be different people - multi personality disorder.
Applying Occam's Razor, the more likely explanation is that you're being trolled...
Of course it's a troll, I guess the sarcasm was a little subtle. But c'mon, you don't find an anti-gay troll who defends an Afghani over an American fascinating? Usually it's just the conservative points magnified. As crappy and obvious as it is, at least it's something new, most just repeat what's already been said a 1000 times. I have a policy of not feeding trolls, but every once in a while it's pretty entertaining to poke them.
vast improvement (Score:5, Funny)
as a beta tester, i can tell you that this is a vast improvement to the old system.
my list of symptoms symptoms: "partially numb to pain, shortness of breath, cannot raise left hand to keyboard"
Before it scared the crap out of me with this line: "you have having heart-attack or stroke. CALL FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IMMEDIATELY" :)
However, the new system gave me a proper reply: "you have Attention Deficit Disorder, need to exercise more and please stop masterbating before using Google Health"
Re: (Score:2)
One afternoon I was feeling kind of dizzy and lethargic, probably from a lack of excercise and staring at the keyboard all day.
Out of an abundance of paranoia, I called the 800 number of my insurance company's help line, and spoke to a nurse.
I went through my symptoms, in great detail, because when you're giving a medical history (especially over the phone when they can't see or touch you), any minor detail might make a difference. I could hear her keyboard clicking in the background.
She said, "you should g
Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not. It's not like anyone thinks search results are simply searches of an index of what's on the web anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly why you need to offer Google as little information about you as possible, and go see a doctor.
Besides, Google's privacy invasion schemes notwithstanding, real doctors don't like it when you self-diagnose. So, since you can't really tell them Google told you you have a life-threatening ass tumor, you're better off not searching anything and going straight to the doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped using Google a long time ago. Aside from privacy issues, I don't want a search engine trying to guess what I want in my results.
... and still added to your profile. (Score:3, Insightful)
Better advice or not, the medical searches you perform will still be added to the profile of information kept about you by Google.
Any medical related searches should be performed anonymously through some sort of proxy.
Re:... and still added to your profile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Better advice or not, the medical searches you perform will still be added to the profile of information kept about you by Google.
And then promptly sold to your insurance company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best News Today (Score:1)
At what cost? (Score:2)
Plus ça change (Score:1)
Sounds pretty much like what the world and his/her infomatics monkey were trying to sell budget-holding informatics monkeys 15 years ago. I'm sure I'm excited, but would be more excited by a clear account of the whole bidness.
The non-trivial challenge of delivering useful health information in the absence of a useful patient record has burned quite a lot cash and made quite a few careers. Citizens may wish to review Google's interminable chain of cross referenced privacy policies. Give me fluffy results any
Truth in information (Score:1)
medical apps (Score:1)