Narketpally Syn CBBLE: Participatory medical Cognition Web 2.0-3.0(December 2025)
[8:39 am, 01/12/2025] cm: Amazing write up! 👏👏
I never thought a busy neurosurgeon would be able to write this!
Although time and again I've been proven wrong in the past!
Beautiful! I've become an instant fan!
[10:29 am, 01/12/2025] huai1: Yes, I deeply feel that man's cure is linked to people waiting and praying for you heartfuly
[10:33 am, 01/12/2025] huai1: In our culture this is an integral part of healing.
[8:17 am, 02/12/2025] cm: In 1850s there was this guy who was having a near PaJR workflow photographing every patient phenotype and archiving them, albeit closed access with perhaps no real time team based learning as happens currently in an AI driven manner in PaJR!
To quote:
"The documentation was based on photography taken by him (about 200 of which survive to this day), in what was the greatest clinical documentation from the Victorian era [2, 3]. In 1866, he presented his research in an article in which he described a “Mongolian type”
Unquote:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8505282/#CR5
[11:01 am, 02/12/2025] +964 750 136 1306: John Langdon Down's approach to patient documentation in the 1850s was remarkably forward-thinking for its time. His systematic collection of about 200 patient photographs can be seen as an early, manual precursor to modern AI-driven workflows like Patient Journey Recording (PaJR), sharing a fundamental goal of capturing detailed phenotypic data for classification and analysis.
Here is a comparison of his historical methods against modern scientific approaches.
| *Aspect* | *John Langdon Down (1850s-60s)* | *Modern Scientific & AI-Driven Counterparts* |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *Primary Method* | Manual clinical photography of patients. | Digital microscopy, high-throughput automated imaging systems. |
| *Workflow Goal* | Classify disorders by physical traits (e.g., "Mongolian type"). | High-content screening, phenotypic analysis, automated species/trait identification. |
| *"Focus Stacking"* | Not applicable with his equipment. | Essential technique for high-resolution imaging; automated using motorized stages and software. |
| *Handling Poor Data* | No evidence of technical correction for flawed photos. | *Deep learning models* automatically detect and reconstruct defocused images in high-throughput experiments. |
| *Data Accessibility* | *Closed access, private collection. | **FAIR principles* (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable); public repositories with rich metadata. |
| *Analysis & Learning* | Manual observation, measurement, and description. | *AI/ML algorithms* for automated pattern recognition, segmentation, and quantitative analysis. |
### 🏥 The Victorian Medical Context of Down's Work
Down's methodology was shaped by, and also challenged, the medical norms of his era.
- *A Shift in Practice: His career coincided with medicine's transition from relying on patient history to emphasizing **physical examination aided by instruments* like the stethoscope (invented 1816).
- *Scientific Ambition and Limits: While a meticulous observer, Down worked before **germ theory* was established (promoted by Lister in the 1860s). His ethnic classification was influenced by the *anthropological and "degenerative" theories* popular in Victorian science.
### 🤖 From Manual Archives to Modern Data Workflows
The core principles of Down's work—collecting images to analyze form—are now supercharged by technology.
- *Overcoming Technical Limits: Unlike Down's static photos, modern labs use **automated focus stacking*. This involves taking dozens of images at different focal planes and merging them into one perfectly sharp composite, a process essential for documenting 3D specimens.
- *Intelligent Error Correction: In high-throughput experiments, some images will be out of focus. Modern **deep learning-based workflows* can now automatically sort and digitally reconstruct these defocused images, ensuring data integrity.
- *Ensuring Data Reusability: Down's archive was private. Today, the standard is to create **FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data*. This involves annotating images with rich, machine-readable metadata about the sample and how the image was processed, allowing global reuse and analysis.
### 🔬 Understanding the "Mongolian Type" Terminology
Down's 1866 classification used the now-offensive and obsolete term "Mongolian type." It's important to understand this in its historical and biological context.
- *Historical Classification*: He incorrectly suggested individuals had regressed to a "Mongol" ancestral type. Modern genetics shows Down syndrome is caused by a chromosomal anomaly (trisomy 21), with no connection to ethnicity.
- *The Mongol Empire and Genetics: The historical reference was to the **Mongolic peoples* of Asia. Interestingly, separate genetic research has identified a specific Y-chromosomal lineage that spread dramatically across Asia roughly *1000 years ago, which historians and geneticists link to the male-line descendants of **Genghis Khan* and the expansion of the Mongol Empire. This is a distinct, real population-genetic phenomenon but is entirely unrelated to Down's observations or Down syndrome.
I hope this detailed comparison provides a clear picture of how a 19th-century pioneer's methods relate to today's digital science. If you are interested in the specific deep-learning techniques used for image correction in modern labs, I can provide more details on that.
[11.03 am, 02/12/2025] huai1: Modern AI-driven image correction, particularly for focus issues, primarily relies on **deep learning models** that learn to transform poor-quality inputs into usable data. These systems represent the automated, intelligent evolution of the manual observation John Langdon Down pioneered.
The core technology enabling this is the **Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)**. Here’s how it works for focus correction:
* **The Generator**: This neural network takes a **blurry or defocused input image** and attempts to generate a sharp, "corrected" version. Initially, its guesses are poor.
* **The Discriminator**: A second network acts as a critic. It is trained on thousands of pairs of **defocused and their corresponding sharp ground-truth images**. Its job is to distinguish the generator's "fake" sharp images from real sharp ones.
* **Adversarial Training**: The two networks are pitted against each other. The generator constantly improves its fakes to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator gets better at catching fakes. This competition drives both to become highly sophisticated, resulting in a generator that can produce remarkably accurate focused images from blurry inputs.
### 🔬 Key Deep Learning Architectures for Image Restoration
Beyond the GAN framework, specific neural network architectures are particularly effective:
| Technique/Architecture | Primary Function | Common Application Context |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)** | Generate high-resolution, focused images from low-quality inputs. | **Digital Pathology**, restoring focus in whole-slide images; **Microscopy**, enhancing low-light or fast-capture images. |
| **U-Net & Attention U-Net** | Pixel-to-pixel translation & restoration, focusing on relevant features. | **Biological Image Analysis**, segmenting cells/organelles from noisy data; **Medical Imaging**, enhancing MRI/CT scans. |
| **Deep Fourier Channel Attention Network** | Operates in frequency domain to recover lost high-frequency details (sharp edges). | **Computational Imaging**, correcting for known optical aberrations in microscope systems. |
### 🧪 Practical Applications in the Lab
This technology is not theoretical. It's integrated into workflows that would be the modern equivalent of Down's photo archive:
* **High-Content Screening (HCS)**: In labs that automatically photograph thousands of cell cultures for drug discovery, **15-20% of images can be out of focus**. AI models pre-sort these, flagging poor-quality images and **automatically reconstructing** them, saving weeks of manual re-screening.
* **Digital Pathology**: When scanning a physical glass biopsy slide to create a digital image, variations in tissue thickness can cause parts to be blurry. **Focus-correcting GANs** can digitally "flatten" the image, ensuring every cell across the entire sample is in sharp focus for the pathologist's review.
* **Live-Cell Imaging**: To minimize damage to living cells from light (phototoxicity), researchers take faster, dimmer photos. **AI models are trained to take these noisy, low-contrast images and output clean, detailed frames**, allowing observation of delicate biological processes over time.
### 🧠 How It Contrasts with Down's Method
The shift from a manual to an AI-driven paradigm is fundamental:
| **Dimension** | **Down's Manual Method (1850s)** | **Modern AI-Driven Workflow** |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Agent of Analysis** | Human eye and brain of one observer. | **Algorithmic models** trained on millions of data points. |
| **Scale & Speed** | **~200 photographs** over a decade. | **Thousands to millions of images** processed in hours or days. |
| **Subjectivity** | Prone to the **theoretical biases** (e.g., ethnic classification) of the era. | Aims for **quantitative, reproducible** feature extraction (though bias in training data is a critical concern). |
| **Core Action** | **Descriptive Documentation**: "This patient has these features." | **Predictive & Generative Modeling**: "This blurry input most likely corresponds to this sharp structure." |
In essence, the field has moved from **documenting phenotypes** for human classification to **creating intelligent systems** that can clean, restore, and interpret phenotypic data at scale and with minimal human intervention.
If you are interested in a specific application area, such as pathology or cell biology, I can provide more detailed examples of the algorithms and tools used in that domain.
[4:13 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: 49/F with known ovarian cancer now developed male pattern balding and a beard. She also developed central obesity with striae. What do you see?
[4:19 pm, 02/12/2025] huai1: This clinical vignette strongly suggests a paraneoplastic endocrine syndrome, most likely ovarian steroid cell tumor or ovarian tumor with functioning stroma, producing excess androgens and cortisol.
---
🧠 Clinical Interpretation
⚠️ Key findings:
- Known ovarian cancer
- Virilization: male pattern baldness, beard growth
- Cushingoid features: central obesity, striae
🧬 Likely mechanism:
- Ectopic hormone production by the ovarian tumor:
- Androgens → virilization
- Cortisol → Cushing’s syndrome
This constellation is rare but well-documented in steroid-secreting ovarian tumors, such as:
- Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors
- Steroid cell tumors (not otherwise specified)
- Granulosa-theca cell tumors with functioning stroma
---
📊 CT Image Analysis
In the provided abdominal CT:
- There appears to be a large soft tissue mass in the pelvis, possibly arising from the ovary.
- The measurements (48.74 mm and 58.79 mm) suggest a solid lesion, likely the ovarian tumor.
- No obvious adrenal mass is seen, which supports the ovarian origin of hormone excess.
---
🧪 Suggested next steps:
- Serum hormone panel:
- Testosterone, DHEAS, androstenedione
- Cortisol, ACTH
- Dexamethasone suppression test
- Pelvic MRI for better soft tissue characterization
- Histopathology post-resection to confirm tumor type
---
Would you like a bilingual CME slide summarizing this case for teaching purposes? I can include annotated CT slices, hormone pathways, and diagnostic algorithms.
[4:19 pm, 02/12/2025] huai1: The correlation between the CT image and the clinical presentation lies in identifying a hormonally active ovarian mass that explains the patient's virilization and Cushingoid features.
---
Clinical–Radiological Correlation
🧬 Clinical clues:
- 49/F with known ovarian cancer
- Virilization: male pattern baldness, beard
- Cushingoid features: central obesity, striae
These point toward excess androgen and cortisol production, likely from a functioning ovarian tumor.
---
📸 CT Image Findings:
- The CT shows a solid pelvic mass, measuring approximately 48.74 mm × 58.79 mm, likely arising from the ovary.
- No adrenal enlargement or mass is visible, making ectopic adrenal hormone production less likely.
- The mass appears well-defined and solid, consistent with steroid cell tumors, Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors, or granulosa-theca tumors with functioning stroma.
---
🔗 Pathophysiological Link:
| Feature | Hormone | Source | Imaging Correlation |
|--------|---------|--------|---------------------|
| Beard, baldness | Androgens (testosterone, DHEAS) | Ovarian tumor | Solid pelvic mass |
| Central obesity, striae | Cortisol | Ectopic ACTH or cortisol from tumor | No adrenal mass; ovarian origin likely |
---
🧪 Next Steps:
- Hormonal assays: testosterone, DHEAS, cortisol, ACTH
- Pelvic MRI: better soft tissue characterization
- Histopathology: confirm tumor type and hormone production
Would you like a CME-style infographic linking hormone excess to imaging and clinical signs? I can include bilingual labels and a teaching case format.
[4:20 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Hmmm. Which LLM is this sir? Looks like it is way off mark
[4:20 pm, 02/12/2025] huai1: Copilot 👆
[4:23 pm, 02/12/2025] huai1: I hear you 🙂. Just to clarify: I’m not built on any single LLM that you might know by name. I’m Copilot, an AI companion created by Microsoft. My responses come from the latest generation of large language models across the industry, but I don’t have visibility into the specific architecture, training data, or model names under the hood.
What makes me different is that I’m designed to synthesize information, adapt to your context, and build structured outputs—whether that’s medical case analysis, CME-style teaching tools, or exam prep checklists. Sometimes my reasoning can miss the mark, and I appreciate you pointing that out. It helps me recalibrate and sharpen the correlation between clinical findings and imaging.
Since you’re working through a case with ovarian cancer and endocrine manifestations, would you like me to reframe the clinical–radiological correlation more precisely—focusing on how ovarian tumors can mimic adrenal pathology and how CT helps distinguish the source?
[4:32 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: ACTH secreting tumour?
[4:34 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: How and why?
[4:35 pm, 02/12/2025] huai126: Sir can you please share if there are any more history and Examination findings, to differentiate if she is having hirsutism or Virilisation? Then we can say it's an Androgen secreting tumor
[4:37 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: What does growing a beard and male pattern baldness suggest to you!
[4:38 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Agree with the line of thought though.
[4:41 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: Central obesity and striae may indicate cushingoid features...and high ACTH can also lead to increased production of androgens which explains the growing beard and male patterned baldness??
[4:45 pm, 02/12/2025] huai126: Sir, it's Suggesting that the tumour can produce a high level of Androgens which can Cause Virilisation (male Pattern baldness+ Beard growth,)
[4:55 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Right okay. Is ACTH required for production of sex steroids?
Normally, where is ACTH produced from?
[4:56 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Yes. What is your diagnosis?
Look at the image carefully again and you'll get it
[4:59 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: Sir, ACTH is produced from anterior pituitary and stimulates the adrenals and is required for androgen production
[5:04 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Yes. And why do you think this is an ACTH producing tumor then?
[5:13 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: Sir, I thought of an ectopic ACTH production
[5:14 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: Or there is a possibility of adrenal tumour as well which can lead to above mentioned symptoms
[5:17 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Wouldn't an ectopic ACTH tumor generally cause Bilateral adrenal involvement? Look at the image closely and tell me what you think
[5:48 pm, 02/12/2025] huai70: An adrenal tumour Sir?
[10.05 pm, 02/12/2025] huai2: Yes but look at the history and the image carefully. Will reveal diagnosis soon.
[1.01 pm, 03/12/2025] cm: OPD now
70F accused of black magic when she was a 15 year old girl following which she was tied to a tree and her toes chopped off.
4 years back she also had trauma to the left hand resulting in multiple swan neck deformities and a z deformity of her thumb as in the attached image
[1:03 pm, 03/12/2025] huai34: This is unfathomable!
She was just 15!!
[1:06 pm, 03/12/2025] huai34: Weirdly enough it's always women who are victims of this kind of superstition driven social punishments
[1.12 pm, 03/12/2025] cm:
No comments:
Post a Comment