Not a member yet? Register
for full benefits! |
|
|
|
|
Using the Virtual Psychological Human to Revolutionise Care
A BBC short segment showing Dr Kohl explaining the VPH for Heart Tissue
Dr Peter Kohl of Oxford University has a dream. A dream of using virtual reality
models of the body's organs that simulate both structurally and functionally
to revolutionise both our understanding and treatment provision to patients.
He is one of the lead instigators on the Virtual Psychological Human or VPH
project being funded by the European Union, which he hopes will see results
within the next 5-10 years.
He feels that for decades biology has focussed on tearing the body down into
isolated component pieces, and now its time to stop doing that, and build back
up from those components into a holistic approach once again.
"We have developed better tools to look at smaller parts of the puzzle
in terms of structure and function," he said. "We have drilled down
into the detail. At the same time, our knowledge has become a fragmented construction
site. We now need to understand how the pieces interact with each other and
the environment."
However, Dr Kohl believes a complete model of the body will never be finished.
"A model cannot aim to capture every aspect of the original; otherwise
it would be just as complex and unwieldy as the real thing," he said.
"A model is a simplified representation of reality. Different models
are built for different purposes. Models need to be constantly updated with
testing, and new models will be needed for different specific reasons. Like
tools in a tool-box, you need to select your model to fit the question."
"A computer model can be used as a tool to access plausibility and
help a human researcher or clinician work more efficiently through scenarios.
Computers can already calculate more steps ahead than a chess master - we
need to make use of this to be able to cope in the real world."
Dr Kohl that these simulations need to be assessed thoroughly, rather than
just taking whichever approach produces a model that seems to match the patient
exactly, as only by comparing a thorough model with the differences experienced
by the patient, will anything be learnt.
"If you compare your predication with real life and you get an exact
match, this is great for clinicians. Within the given framework your model
addresses reality. This increases your confidence - but there is no knowledge
gained. However, if your model and reality are different - this drives insight.
Either your data is incorrect, implementation is wrong or understanding inaccurate.
You have more to learn."
Use In Care
Currently,
if a patient has been admitted to hospital, before a major surgery, a diagnostic
scan and blood workup will be done, to verify the current state of things inside
the patient. At the best and most efficient facilities, this currently takes
45 minutes to come back to doctors. During these 45 minutes, there is a window,
not currently utilised, whereby the DICOM/PACs digital scan data, which comes
back immediately, could be compared to VPH visualisation data, to note the differences
between the patient's organ of concern, and a fully functional organ both static
and in real-time operation. This would highlight individual muscle filaments,
nerve channels, and areas of concern not just in the immediate malfunction site,
but around it, perhaps feeding into it as well. This kind of data would give
surgeons a much greater understanding of the problem, in the run up to working
on it.
By seeing the differences, and the interplay of the patient's heart muscles
for example, they might decide the best place to attack is not where the symptoms
are exhibiting after all, but rather a knot of tissue that is somewhat away
from the problem site, but which their visualisation data shows is actually
driving the problem.
The result of all this visualisation work should be a swifter, more accurate
surgical procedure with less invasion into the body's systems, since the cause
of a problem can be accurately targeted. On the flip side of course, fewer complications
and shorter recovery time, putting patients back on their feet and avoiding
unnecessary procedures.
Worries
Of course, the whole idea is a radical departure from traditional clinical
work, which may worry ptients and practitioners alike.
Perhaps Dr Kohl's argument on this topic, makes the most sense:
"Why should a quantitative computer model be any less
reliable than a doctor-based in-brain assessment of a patient? "
References
Operating
on the virtual human
Bigger
Than Life: Virtual Physiological Heart
Staff Comments
|