One page for the call with the clinical team: who uses the system, how a person's answers become advice, how the medical rules are kept up to date, and what happens when two guidelines disagree. Items marked proposed are open for decision.
Eight parts. The patient app, rules engine and evidence registry exist today as an MVP prototype, not yet built for production. The rest is what turns the prototype into a service hospitals and districts can run.
A confidential risk check that turns a person's answers into a screening and referral plan, where every piece of advice traces back to a named guideline and a clinician's sign-off.
The public never needs an account. Everyone else signs in, and sees only what their role needs. Every view of identifiable data is logged.
| Capability | Public no login | Patient phone OTP | Camp / health worker | Doctor | Clinical panel | Governance lead | Hospital / district admin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Take the risk check | ● | ● | ● for others | – | – | – | – |
| Save plan, see past checks | – | ● own | ◐ own camp, time-limited | ◐ referred patients | – | – | – |
| Book, callback, referral slip | ● | ● | ● | – | – | – | – |
| Register people at a camp, offline | – | – | ● | – | – | – | – |
| Record test outcome; rate the advice | – | – | – | ● | – | – | – |
| Review rules, vote with reasons | – | – | – | ◐ if on a panel | ● | ● | – |
| Decide conflicts; approve and publish a ruleset | – | – | – | – | – | ● | – |
| Manage users, camps, facilities, branding | – | – | – | – | – | – | ● |
| Dashboards (de-identified numbers only) | – | – | ◐ own camp | – | ● | ● | ● |
● full access · ◐ limited as noted · – none. Oncoshield's own platform team sits above all of these for support and is audited the same way.
The engine never guesses: answers are converted into variables, and only rules that a clinician has signed off can fire. The doctor's outcome closes the loop and feeds the review process.
This replaces emailing Word files. Each Word file we prepared becomes one review case per tumour type inside the doctor panel: the same questions, answered on screen, with every vote and reason kept.
The Word files collect opinions; they do not decide conflicts. What decides them is a short written precedence policy that the clinical team agrees once, then applies case by case. A draft is below.
ICMR (2023) says no population PSA screening in India. USPSTF says men 55–69 may choose after discussion. Rule: routine screening, Indian guidance exists, so ICMR leads. The app would stop prompting PSA for all men and keep symptom-led advice; the panel confirms or overrides with a recorded reason.
This approach follows the published method for adapting international guidelines to a local setting (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and the Evidence-to-Decision framework): adopt, adapt or set aside each recommendation, and write down why.
Proposed rule: AI prepares and flags; clinicians decide; the engine only runs signed-off rules. This keeps every piece of advice explainable and makes the regulatory case simpler.
Your idea of rating recommendations from doctor feedback works best as a score anyone can recompute, shown in the governance console. A drop below a set level opens a review case automatically.
Weights are a starting proposal for the panel to set. Every input is stored, so the score can always be explained.
Phases, not dates; timing depends on the pilot partner and team size.
One reviewer per tumour group (9 groups, some can be combined), one governance lead, and the agreement threshold (for example 75%).
Indian national guidance first for routine screening; most protective threshold for symptoms; specialist societies for inherited risk. Edit, then sign.
Online review needs phase 1. If the panel wants to start sooner, the Word files serve as the one-time baseline and are loaded into the system afterwards.
A one-tap "appropriate / not appropriate" on each referral. Agree how ratings are used: as input to review cases, never as automatic changes.
Confirm "AI assists, people decide" as the rule for version 1.
No login to take the check; optional phone OTP to save the plan and get reminders.
Get advice on whether CDSCO treats Oncoshield as software as a medical device, and confirm DPDP consent wording and India hosting.
Which hospital or district, which camp, and who closes the loop on outcomes.