Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Big Data Challenges for Clinical and Precision Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Big Data, Big Challenges: A Healthcare Perspective

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Bioengineering ((LNBE))

Abstract

Big data in health is a subject associated with many column inches and claims. It’s closely connected with other areas that are also close to the peak of the Gartner Hype Cycle: Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Precision Medicine and Genomics. Given this exposure and also the potential for great benefit if done right, this chapter will sound a largely cautionary note. We must be aware of, and properly address the technical, trust, privacy and governance issues that Big Data brings up. From Hippocratic times, Primum non nocere (first do no harm) has driven medical advance. Big Data needs to be no exception. We need to take great care at the outset with Big Data as once out, the genie will not go back in the bottle. Answers to some of the technical concerns have existed since the early 1980s and unless addressed at the point of care now, will continue to foster a Garbage in and Garbage out model. While there is no doubt that a degree of composting can improve matters, machine learning, AI and true precision medicine requires high quality, semantically interoperable, structured and coded, curated data. Alongside these technical concerns we consider the potential impact on the data subject, citizen and consumer. We also examine whether clinicians are appropriately led and equipped with education and tools for use at the point of care. It is only with these in place that we will be able to deliver solutions on the data quality challenges. Through ensuring these criteria are met with the highest possible quality, big data will start to meet the multiple expectations already in place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The older term ‘Personalised Medicine’, which is often used interchangeably with ‘Precision Medicine’ will not be used in this Chapter. Personalised Medicine which implies specific manufacture or synthesis for the individual is a valid but much more specific concept.

References

  1. Big data, big hype? [Internet] (2014) [cited 24 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/04/big-data-big-hype/

  2. Hurwitz J, Nugent A, Halper F, Kaufman M (2013) Big data for dummies, 1st edn

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adamson D (2015) Big data in healthcare made simple [Internet]. Health Catalyst [cited 24 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.healthcatalyst.com/big-data-in-healthcare-made-simple

  4. Bate A, Reynolds RF, Caubel P (2018) The hope, hype and reality of big data for pharmacovigilance. Ther Adv Drug Saf 9(1):5–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anonymous (2008) Chapter 67: children, young people and attitudes to privacy [Internet]. Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC report 108) [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/For%20Your%20Information%3A%20Australian%20Privacy%20Law%20and%20Practice%20%28ALRC%20Report%20108%29%20/67-childre

  6. Collier R (2012) Medical privacy breaches rising. CMAJ 184(4):E215–E216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Keen PGW (1980) Decision support systems: a research perspective. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/17211/47172 [Internet]. [cited 24 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/47172?show=full?show=full

  8. Jugulum R (2016) Importance of data quality for analytics. In: Quality in the 21st century. Springer, Cham, pp 23–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cai L, Zhu Y (2015) The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era. Data Sci J 14:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, Hashmat B, Koppel R, Overhage JM et al (2013) Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20(e1):e2–e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Novas C, Rose N (2000) Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econ Soc 29(4):485–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sermon K, Goossens V, Seneca S, Lissens W, De Vos A, Vandervorst M et al (1998) Preimplantation diagnosis for Huntington’s disease (HD): clinical application and analysis of the HD expansion in affected embryos. Prenat Diagn 18(13):1427–1436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sini E (2016) How big data is changing healthcare.pdf [Internet]. Humanitas Hospital Italy. Available from: https://www.eiseverywhere.com/file_uploads/9b7793c3ad732c28787b2a8bc0892c31_Elena-Sini_How-Big-Data-is-Changing-Healthcare.pdf

  14. Big opportunities, big challenges [Internet]. [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.ey.com/gl/en/services/advisory/ey-big-data-big-opportunities-big-challenges

  15. Bellazzi R (2014) Big data and biomedical informatics: a challenging opportunity. Yearb Med Inform 22(9):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  16. The big-data revolution in US health care: accelerating value and innovation [Internet]. [cited 18 Dec 2017]. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/the-big-data-revolution-in-us-health-care

  17. Grissinger M (2010) The five rights: a destination without a map. Pharm Ther 35(10):542

    Google Scholar 

  18. Polubriaginof F, Tatonetti NP, Vawdrey DK (2015) An assessment of family history information captured in an electronic health record. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 5(2015):2035–2042

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nathan PA, Johnson O, Clamp S, Wyatt JC (2016) Time to rethink the capture and use of family history in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 66(653):627–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehrabi S, Krishnan A, Sohn S, Roch AM, Schmidt H, Kesterson J et al (2015) DEEPEN: a negation detection system for clinical text incorporating dependency relation into NegEx. J Biomed Inform 1(54):213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu S, Miller T, Masanz J, Coarr M, Halgrim S, Carrell D et al (2014) Negation’s not solved: generalizability versus optimizability in clinical natural language processing. PLoS One 9(11):e112774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ford EW, Menachemi N, Phillips MT (2006) Predicting the adoption of electronic health records by physicians: when will health care be paperless? J Am Med Inform Assoc 13(1):106–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Warner JL, Jain SK, Levy MA (2016) Integrating cancer genomic data into electronic health records. Genome Med 8(1):113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Richard Lilford AM (2012) Looking back, moving forward [Internet]. University of Birmingham [cited 17 Oct 2017]. Available from: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-mds/haps/projects/cfhep/news/HSJ.pdf

  25. Wood WA, Bennett AV, Basch E (2015) Emerging uses of patient generated health data in clinical research. Mol Oncol 9(5):1018–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Haghi M, Thurow K, Stoll R (2017) Wearable devices in medical internet of things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthc Inform Res 23(1):4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Montgomery K, Chester J (2017) Health wearable devices in the big data era: ensuring privacy, security, and consumer protection. American University, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhu H, Colgan J, Reddy M, Choe EK (2016) Sharing patient-generated data in clinical practices: an interview study. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2016:1303–1312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen DJ, Keller SR, Hayes GR, Dorr DA, Ash JS, Sittig DF (2016) Integrating patient-generated health data into clinical care settings or clinical decision-making: lessons learned from project healthdesign. JMIR Hum Factors 3(2):e26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Burn J (2013) Should we sequence everyone’s genome? Yes. BMJ 21(346):f3133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Herper M (2017) Illumina promises to sequence human genome for $100—but not quite yet. Forbes Magazine [Internet]. [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/01/09/illumina-promises-to-sequence-human-genome-for-100-but-not-quite-yet/

  32. Rochman B (2017) Full genome sequencing for newborns raises questions. Scientific American [Internet]. [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/full-genome-sequencing-for-newborns-raises-questions/

  33. Rojahn SY (2014) DNA sequencing of IVF embryos. MIT Technology Review [Internet]. [cited 25 June 2018]. Available from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524396/dna-sequencing-of-ivf-embryos/

  34. Martin J, Asan, Yi Y, Alberola T, Rodríguez-Iglesias B, Jiménez-Almazán J, et al (2015) Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 104(5):1286–1293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Marx V (2013) Next-generation sequencing: the genome jigsaw. Nature 501(7466):263–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hoffman MA, Williams MS (2011) Electronic medical records and personalized medicine. Hum Genet 130(1):33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoffman MA (2007) The genome-enabled electronic medical record. J Biomed Inform 40(1):44–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Salehinejad H, Valaee S, Mnatzakanian A, Dowdell T, Barfett J, Colak E (2017) Interpretation of mammogram and chest X-ray reports using deep neural networks—preliminary results [Internet]. arXiv [cs.CV]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09254

  39. Roberts K, Rink B, Harabagiu SM, Scheuermann RH, Toomay S, Browning T et al (2012) A machine learning approach for identifying anatomical locations of actionable findings in radiology reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 3(2012):779–788

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hassanpour S, Langlotz CP, Amrhein TJ, Befera NT, Lungren MP (2017) Performance of a machine learning classifier of knee MRI reports in two large academic radiology practices: a tool to estimate diagnostic yield. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(4):750–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vaidya J, Shafiq B, Jiang X, Ohno-Machado L (2013) Identifying inference attacks against healthcare data repositories. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 18(2013):262–266

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weed LL (1968) Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med 278(11):593–600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Henriksson A, Conway M, Duneld M, Chapman WW (2013) Identifying synonymy between SNOMED clinical terms of varying length using distributional analysis of electronic health records. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 16(2013):600–609

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rector AL, Brandt S, Schneider T (2011) Getting the foot out of the pelvis: modeling problems affecting use of SNOMED CT hierarchies in practical applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(4):432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Karlsson D, Nyström M, Cornet R (2014) Does SNOMED CT post-coordination scale? Stud Health Technol Inform 205:1048–1052

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Park Y-T, Atalag K (2015) Current national approach to healthcare ICT standardization: focus on progress in New Zealand. Healthc Inform Res 21(3):144–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tim Benson GG (2017) Interoperability, SNOMED, HL7 and FHIR [Internet]. [cited 23 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/TimBenson1/interoperability-snomed-hl7-and-fhir

  48. WHO | International Classification of Diseases (2018) [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

  49. Metke A (2016) The human phenotype ontolgy in ontoserver. CSIRO

    Google Scholar 

  50. National Clinical Terminology Service (NCTS) website [Internet]. [cited 23 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.healthterminologies.gov.au/tools

  51. SNOMED CT implementation in primary care [Internet]. [cited 24 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/SNOMED-CT-implementation-in-primary-care

  52. SNOMED CT implementation in New Zealand [Internet]. Ministry of Health NZ [cited 24 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/classification-and-terminology/new-zealand-snomed-ct-national-release-centre/snomed-ct-implementation-new-zealand

  53. Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) for health and social care [Internet]. [cited 15 Nov 2017]. Available from: https://theprsb.org/

  54. INTEROPen [Internet]. [cited 27 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.interopen.org/

  55. The Apperta Foundation [Internet] (2018) Apperta [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://apperta.org/

  56. Codd EF (1970) A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun ACM 13(6):377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Database normalization and design techniques [Internet] (2008) Barry Wise NJ SEO [cited 25 June 2018]. Available from: http://www.barrywise.com/2008/01/database-normalization-and-design-techniques/

  58. McDonald K (2018) MSIA questions need for minimum functionality requirements project [Internet]. Pulse+IT [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.pulseitmagazine.com.au:443/news/australian-ehealth/4171-msia-questions-need-for-minimum-functionality-requirements-project

  59. GP2GP [Internet]. [cited 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/gp2gp

  60. DSCN 09/2010 initial standard—ISB—patient banner [Internet]. [cited 27 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1505/dscn-09-2010/index_html

  61. Common User Interface (CUI) [Internet]. [cited 07 Dec 2018]. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160921150545, http://systems.digital.nhs.uk/data/cui/uig

  62. National guidelines for on-screen display of medicines information | Safety and Quality [Internet]. [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/medication-safety/electronic-medication-management/national-guidelines-for-on-screen-display-of-medicines-information/

  63. DeepMind-Royal Free deal is “cautionary tale” for healthcare in the algorithmic age [Internet] (2017) University of Cambridge [cited 23 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/deepmind-royal-free-deal-is-cautionary-tale-for-healthcare-in-the-algorithmic-age

  64. Hodson H (2016) Revealed: Google AI has access to huge haul of NHS patient data. New Scientist [Internet]. [cited 23 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086454-revealed-google-ai-has-access-to-huge-haul-of-nhs-patient-data/

  65. Basu S. Should the NHS share patient data with Google’s DeepMind? [Internet]. WIRED UK [cited 19 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nhs-deepmind-google-data-sharing

  66. Vincent J (2017) Google’s DeepMind made “inexcusable” errors handling UK health data, says report [Internet]. The Verge [cited 15 Nov 2017]. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14932764/deepmind-google-uk-nhs-health-data-analysis

  67. Powles J, Hodson H (2017) Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health Technol 7(4):351–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. How the NHS got it so wrong with care.data [Internet] (2016) [cited 19 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/07/how-the-nhs-got-it-so-wrong-with-caredata/

  69. Temperton J. NHS care.data scheme closed after years of controversy [Internet]. WIRED UK [cited 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/care-data-nhs-england-closed

  70. NHS (2013) NHS England sets out the next steps of public awareness about care.data [Internet]. [cited 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/10/care-data/

  71. van Staa T-P, Goldacre B, Buchan I, Smeeth L (2016) Big health data: the need to earn public trust. BMJ 14(354):i3636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McCartney M (2014) Care.data doesn’t care enough about consent. BMJ 348:g2831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Godlee F (2016) What can we salvage from care.data? BMJ 354:i3907

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mann N (2016) Learn from the mistakes of care.data. BMJ 354:i4289

    Google Scholar 

  75. Cowan P. Govt releases billion-line “de-identified” health dataset [Internet]. iTnews [cited 18 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-releases-billion-line-de-identified-health-dataset-433814

  76. Lubarsky B (2017) Re-identification of “anonymized” data. Georgetown Law Technol Rev 12:202–212

    Google Scholar 

  77. Why quantum computers might not break cryptography | Quanta Magazine [Internet]. Quanta Magazine [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-quantum-computers-might-not-break-cryptography-20170515/

  78. Bernstein DJ, Heninger N, Lou P, Valenta L (2017) Post-quantum RSA. In: Post-quantum cryptography. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, pp 311–329

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Wan Z, Vorobeychik Y, Xia W, Clayton EW, Kantarcioglu M, Malin B (2017) Expanding access to large-scale genomic data while promoting privacy: a game theoretic approach. Am J Hum Genet 100(2):316–322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Malin B, Sweeney L (2004) How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J Biomed Inform 37(3):179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Murphy D (2017) @CareQualityComm—this is one of the triages relating to the 48yr old 30/day smoker woken from sleep with chest pain. It is now updated. pic.twitter.com/BJG27sft4J [Internet]. @DrMurphy11 [cited 27 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://twitter.com/DrMurphy11/status/848110663054622721

  82. Middleton K, Butt M, Hammerla N, Hamblin S, Mehta K, Parsa A (2016) Sorting out symptoms: design and evaluation of the “babylon check” automated triage system [Internet]. arXiv [cs.AI]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02041

  83. Crouch H (2017) Babylon health services says it has “duty” to point out CQC “shortcomings” [Internet]. Digital Health [cited 18 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2017/12/babylon-health-services-says-duty-point-cqc-shortcomings/

  84. McCartney M (2017) Margaret McCartney: innovation without sufficient evidence is a disservice to all. BMJ 5(358):j3980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ogden J (2016) CQC and BMA set out their positions on GP inspections. Prescriber 27(6):44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Dent S (2018) Amazon gets into healthcare with Warren Buffet and JP Morgan [Internet]. Engadget [cited 25 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/30/amazon-healthcare-warren-buffet-jpmorgan-chase/

  87. Terlep S (2017) The real reason CVS wants to buy Aetna? Amazon.com. WSJ Online [Internet]. [cited 25 Feb 2018]; Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-cvs-wants-to-buy-aetna-amazon-com-1509057307

  88. Blumenthal D (2017) Realizing the value (and profitability) of digital health data. Ann Intern Med 166(11):842–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. How much should small businesses spend on IT annually? [Internet] (2015) Optimal Networks [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.optimalnetworks.com/2015/03/06/small-business-spend-it-annually/

  90. Atasoy H, Chen P-Y, Ganju K (2017) The spillover effects of health IT investments on regional healthcare costs. Manage Sci [Internet]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Appleby J, Gershlick B (2017) Keeping up with the Johanssons: how does UK health spending compare internationally? BMJ 3(358):j3568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Williams J, Bullman D (2018) The faculty of clinical informatics [Internet]. FCI [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.facultyofclinicalinformatics.org.uk/

  93. Klasko SK (2017) Interview with Deborah DiSanzo of IBM Watson health. Healthc Transform 2(2):60–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Fogel AL, Kvedar JC (2018) Artificial intelligence powers digital medicine. NPJ Digit Med 1(1):5

    Google Scholar 

  95. Personalised health and care 2020 [Internet]. GOV.UK [cited 25 June 2018]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personalised-health-and-care-2020

  96. Spencer SA (2016) Future of clinical coding. BMJ 26(353):i2875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. McBeth R (2015) NHS number use becomes law | Digital Health [Internet]. Digital Health. [cited 15 Nov 2017]. Available from: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2015/10/nhs-number-use-becomes-law/

  98. NHS number [Internet]. [cited 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/NHS-Number

  99. Morrison Z, Robertson A, Cresswell K, Crowe S, Sheikh A (2011) Understanding contrasting approaches to nationwide implementations of electronic health record systems: England, the USA and Australia. J Healthc Eng 2(1):25–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Pearce C, Bainbridge M (2014) A personally controlled electronic health record for Australia. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21(4):707–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Kelman CW, Bass AJ, Holman CDJ (2002) Research use of linked health data—a best practice protocol. Aust N Z J Public Health 26(3):251–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. National health index [Internet]. Ministry of Health NZ [cited 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/health-identity/national-health-index

  103. Ludvigsson JF, Otterblad-Olausson P, Pettersson BU, Ekbom A (2009) The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research. Eur J Epidemiol 24(11):659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Sood H, Bates D, Halamka J, Sheikh A (2018) Has the time come for unique patient identifiers for the U.S.? [Internet]. NEJM Catal [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://catalyst.nejm.org/time-unique-patient-identifiers-us/

  105. Asian Development Bank (2018) Unique health identifier assessment tool kit [Internet]. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. Available from: https://www.adb.org/documents/unique-health-identifier-assessment-toolkit

  106. West M (2015) Leadership and leadership development in health care [Internet]. The King’s Fund [cited 26 Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/leadership-and-leadership-development-health-care

  107. Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D, Shah A, Doty MM (2017) Mirror, mirror 2017: international comparison reflects flaws and opportunities for better U.S. health care [Internet]. [cited 27 Feb 2018]. Available from: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2017/jul/schneider_mirror_mirror_2017.pdf

  108. Robinson I, Webber J, Eifrem E (2015) Graph databases: new opportunities for connected data. O’Reilly Media, Inc., p 238

    Google Scholar 

  109. Waldrop MM (2016) The chips are down for Moore’s law. Nature 530(7589):144–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Hruska J (2013) Intel’s former chief architect: Moore’s law will be dead within a decade [Internet]. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/165331-intels-chief-architect-moores-law-will-be-dead-within-adecade

  111. Iwama K, Kawano Y, Murao M (2013) Theory of quantum computation, communication, and cryptography. In: 7th conference, TQC 2012, Tokyo, Japan, 17–19 May 2012, revised selected papers. Springer, p 153

    Google Scholar 

  112. Dumitrescu EF, McCaskey AJ, Hagen G, Jansen GR, Morris TD, Papenbrock T et al (2018) Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus. Phys Rev Lett 120(21):210501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Michael Bainbridge

Authors
  1. Michael Bainbridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Bainbridge .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Information and Computing Technology, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

    Mowafa Househ

  2. School of Health Information Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Andre W. Kushniruk

  3. School of Health Information Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Elizabeth M. Borycki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bainbridge, M. (2019). Big Data Challenges for Clinical and Precision Medicine. In: Househ, M., Kushniruk, A., Borycki, E. (eds) Big Data, Big Challenges: A Healthcare Perspective. Lecture Notes in Bioengineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06109-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06109-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06108-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06109-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation