The document announces a consumer health startup event in Seoul on March 24, 2013. It will take place from 9:00am to 1:00pm at the COEX conference room and include presentations on consumer health startup trends, mobile wellness technology, and a panel discussion. Registration can be completed online.

1. SEOUL THE FIRST EVENT
with KiMES2013
COEX March 24, 2013
Consumer Health Startups in Korea
09:00 ~ 09:30 / 등록 및 네트워킹
09:30 ~ 10:00 / Opening: Health 2.0 Seoul Chapter / 김보람 창립자(Health 2.0 Seoul Chapter)
10:00 ~ 10:30 / Consumer Health Startup Trends 2013 / 정지훈 교수(명지병원)
10:30 ~ 11:00 / Special Lecture: 친환경시대, Green+Hospital 전략
11:00 ~ 11:20 / Smart Patient: 스마트폰 시대 환자들의 새로운 검색, 커뮤니케이션 문화와 대응방안 / 임진석 대표(굿닥)
11:20 ~ 11:40 / Casual Health Game - 건강한 강아지 순돌이 / 박재범 대표(휴레이포지티브)
11:40 ~ 12:00 / Mobile Wellness Technology, Our Lessons and How We are Changing the World / 정세주 대표(눔)
12:00 ~ 12:20 / Cloud 기반의 Animation 설명처방, HiChart / 정희두 대표(헬스웨이브)
12:20 ~ 13:00 / Panel Discussion: Consumer Health Startups in Korea / 발표자 외 김정은 교수(서울대학교), 고영하 회장(한국엔젤투자협회)
DATE/TIME: March 24, 2013 09:00am - 01:00pm
VENUE: COEX Conference Room #308
REGISTRATION: http://bit.ly/Health2KiMES

2. SEOUL THE FIRST EVENT
with KiMES2013
COEX March 24, 2013
James G. Boram Kim

3. Source: Ludwig Gatzke and Markus Angermeier

4. Source: Ludwig Gatzke and Markus Angermeier

5. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

6. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

7. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

8. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

9. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

10. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

11. Web 2.0: O’Reilly’s Core Competencies
• Services, not packaged software
• Data sources that get richer as more people use them
• Trusting users as co-developers
• Harnessing collective intelligence
• Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
• Software above the level of a single device
• Lightweight user interfaces, and development and
business models
vs.
COEX
Source: Tim O’Reilly, What is Web 2.0, September, 2005

12. COEX
Source: Enoch Choi

13. , the movement, is all about new
technologies improving health care, including cloud, Web,
mobile and sensors. Health 2.0 has three defining
characteristics:
1. Adaptable technology that integrates with the wider cloud and “unplatform” ecosystem
2. A focus on the user-experience through design and usability
3. The use of data to improve outcomes through intelligent decision-making
“... social software and light-weight tools to promote collaboration between ... stakeholders in
health.” - Jane Sarasohn-Kahn and Matthew Holt
“... all the constituents focus on health care value ... for improving the safety, efficiency, and quality
of health care.” - Scott Shreeve
“Health 2.0 is participatory healthcare. ...,we the patients can be effective partners in our own
healthcare ...” - Ted Eytan
COEX
Source: Health 2.0 Wiki

14. Matthew Holt’s evolving view of a moving target
• Personalized search that looks into the long tail, but cares about
the user experience
• Communities that capture the accumulated knowledge of patients
and caregivers; and clinicians -- and explain it to the world
• Intelligent tools for content delivery -- and transactions
• Better integration of data with content
All with the result of patients increasingly guiding their own care
COEX
Source: Health 2.0 Wiki

15. Health 2.0: User-Generated Healthcare
Social
Networks
Search
Tools
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

16. Health 2.0: User-Generated Healthcare
Social
Networks
Search
Tools
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

17. Health 2.0: User-Generated Healthcare
Social
Networks
Search
Tools
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

18. Health 2.0: User-Generated Healthcare
Social
Content Networks
Search
Tools
Transaction
Data
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

19. A Continuum of Health 2.0
User-generated Users connect Partnerships to Data drives
health care to providers reform delivery decisions & discovery
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

20. A Continuum of Health 2.0
User-generated Users connect Partnerships to Data drives
health care to providers reform delivery decisions & discovery
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

21. A Continuum of Health 2.0
User-generated Users connect Partnerships to Data drives
health care to providers reform delivery decisions & discovery
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

22. A Continuum of Health 2.0
User-generated Users connect Partnerships to Data drives
health care to providers reform delivery decisions & discovery
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH Nakamura et al
Original Paper
Mining Online Social Network Data for Biomedical Research: A
Comparison of Clinicians’ and Patients’ Perceptions About
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Treatments
Carlos Nakamura1, PhD; Mark Bromberg2, MD, PhD; Shivani Bhargava3, BA; Paul Wicks3, PhD; Qing Zeng-Treitler1,
PhD
1
Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
2
Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
3
PatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States
Corresponding Author:
Carlos Nakamura, PhD
Department of Biomedical Informatics
University of Utah
Room 5775 HSEB
26 South 2000 East
Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-5775
United States
Phone: 1 801 213 3357
Fax: 1 801 581 4297
Email: carlos.nakamura@utah.edu
Abstract
Background: While only one drug is known to slow the progress of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), numerous drugs can
be used to treat its symptoms. However, very few randomized controlled trials have assessed the efficacy, safety, and side effects
of these drugs. Due to this lack of randomized controlled trials, consensus among clinicians on how to treat the wide range of
ALS symptoms and the efficacy of these treatments is low. Given the lack of clinical trials data, the wide range of reported
symptoms, and the low consensus among clinicians on how to treat those symptoms, data on the prevalence and efficacy of
treatments from a patient’s perspective could help advance the understanding of the symptomatic treatment of ALS.
Objective: To compare clinicians’ and patients’ perspectives on the symptomatic treatment of ALS by comparing data from a
traditional survey study of clinicians with data from a patient social network.
Methods: We used a survey of clinicians’ perceptions by Forshew and Bromberg as our primary data source and adjusted the
data from PatientsLikeMe to allow for comparisons. We first extracted the 14 symptoms and associated top four treatments listed
by Forshew and Bromberg. We then searched the PatientsLikeMe database for the same symptom–treatment pairs. The
PatientsLikeMe data are structured and thus no preprocessing of the data was required.
Results: After we eliminated pairs with a small sample, 15 symptom–treatment pairs remained. All treatments identified as
useful were prescription drugs. We found similarities and discrepancies between clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions of treatment
prevalence and efficacy. In 7 of the 15 pairs, the differences between the two groups were above 10%. In 3 pairs the differences
were above 20%. Lorazepam to treat anxiety and quinine to treat muscle cramps were among the symptom–treatment pairs with
high concordance between clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions. Conversely, amitriptyline to treat labile emotional effect and
oxybutynin to treat urinary urgency displayed low agreement between clinicians and patients.
Conclusions: Assessing and comparing the efficacy of the symptomatic treatment of a complex and rare disease such as ALS
is not easy and needs to take both clinicians’ and patients’ perspectives into consideration. Drawing a reliable profile of treatment
efficacy requires taking into consideration many interacting aspects (eg, disease stage and severity of symptoms) that were not
covered in the present study. Nevertheless, pilot studies such as this one can pave the way for more robust studies by helping
researchers anticipate and compensate for limitations in their data sources and study design.
(J Med Internet Res 2012;14(3):e90) doi:10.2196/jmir.2127
http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e90/ J Med Internet Res 2012 | vol. 14 | iss. 3 | e90 | p.1
(page number not for citation purposes)
XSL• FO
RenderX
COEX
Source: Matthew Halt

23. COEX
Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project

24. , the conference series, is the leading
showcase of the new technologies transforming health
care across the globe.
With conferences in the U.S., Asia, Middle East and Europe, Health 2.0 provides the premier
opportunities for connecting IT innovators to established healthcare organizations and investors.
COEX

25. Chapters represent the grassroots
of Health 2.0!
There is significant work going on in healthcare IT, especially at the local level. Health 2.0 Chapters
are free self-sufficient groups that bring home the benefits of a Health 2.0 conference to a more
accessible level. Chapter leaders volunteer to help organize these exciting events to bring
together their local community on a regular basis to network, learn, listen to speakers discuss
relevant topics or see the latest demos from local companies. All of these groups serve a
valuable role in bringing healthcare system professionals together in a local forum.
COEX

26. Like Us! Follow Us!
http://www.facebook.com/Health2Seoul
@Health2Seoul
#H2Seoul
COEX

27. We thank our generous partners
COEX