21071032 – #AyurRakshak : AyurRakshak, Designing Tomorrow’s Wellness

3 thoughts on “21071032 – #AyurRakshak : AyurRakshak, Designing Tomorrow’s Wellness”

1. 6

   Hello!
   Good day!
   Slide 1: good
   Slide 2: Font size may be increased for clear readability
   slide 3, 4 and 5: Clumsy and not properly presented for the reader. (of course you have limited slides, being an engineer its your innovation to present it in the best possible way. lots of text is presented.
   Slide 6: When you refer to a research paper please do not “ctrlc ctrlv” the url rather use the standard format of referring to research papers.
   in the video, it was explained about the applications of AI and ML in personalized medicine. It will be better if you explain your idea, uniqueness of your idea, your targeted area of medicine, methodology.
   thank you
   all the best

   Reply
2. 4

   1. Work done is good

   2. Presentation Review:
   2.1 Page 1: Replace ‘TITLE PAGE’ with the proposal title; update the team id as per website;
   2.2 Page 2: You may remove ‘Overview’ and keep the one liner as it is to save space on slide; highlight the words that needs utmost attention; avoid using team name multiple times and focus on highlighting the proposal title; it is understood that your have 2 majot modules, one is analysis of disease severity and the other is personalised drug recommendations.
   2.3 Page 3: No Comments
   2.4 Page 4: felt a sudden cameo of NLP, DB out of the blue; did not find the types of feasibility you tried to map with the proposal; virtualisation of challenges and strategies were felt irrelevant in terms of representation, you might have used some other rep to convey them; did not discuss about by-passing doctor while personalising drug recommendation which might be the explanatory for the need/ importance of your proposal
   2.5 Page 5: did not specify about types of patients; hoping that not petty diseases need such systems, felt the specificity of diseases that could be benefit-teed from this proposal; Benefits were more highlighted than impact; all benefits seems to be very generic.
   2.6 Page 6: along with the links, a mention of what content extracted from them would add a value to the reference;

   3. Idea Review:
   3.1 Idea was explained around the fancy of possible cases;
   3.2 only true positives were discussed, which makes the proposal be in need of a lot of ground research and away being a solution/ idea for implementation
   3.3 all the dimensions of the proposal wrt challenges could have been discussed to create enthu in pursuing this proposal

   4. Video Review:
   Pace was excellent but visuals were irrelevant most of the times and felt to listen rather not visualizing it in mind or understand your intention due to many visuals on screen. i personally condemn usage of a lot of copyright or protected work instead you might have searched for open data and also present stats to numerically potry the need of the proposal. I am unable to review team’s presentation skills due to a self explanatory video.

   Reply
3. More technology terms, end users not specified, either used by doctors or in general not specified. The system should function with regulations as personalized medical prescription, which involves life. Video is also not self made please check.

   Reply