A note to Drift0r
Hi Drift0r. I do not have a diagnosis for you, and I will not pretend that I do. I can make the record easier for you and a doctor to inspect.
Your case spans years of tests, scans, symptoms, treatments and specialist opinions. That is too much to absorb during a short appointment. My approach is to sort the material first, keep each statement tied to its source, and make the case searchable without starting from zero every time.
Where things stand: the public transcript and nine de-identified summaries are indexed and searchable. The system works as a document navigator. It cannot verify the underlying tests, images or clinical context until the original reports are available.
How the current system works
Graphify maps dates, symptoms, measurements, treatments and medical terms when they appear together across documents. It gives us a practical way to move through a long history.
A connection is a navigation clue. It does not prove medical causation.
The retrieval system searches the record before a language model answers. Each result keeps the file name, page number or video timestamp, source type and file fingerprint.
Missing or conflicting evidence stays visible instead of being guessed away.
A local language model can later compare retrieved passages and write a readable, cited answer. This could help you prepare for appointments without retelling the whole history.
The model remains a language interface, not a doctor.
Good search is not a medical conclusion. The source layer has to be trustworthy before any answer layer can be taken seriously.
What this could be useful for
“List every bone-density measurement in date order, with the scanner site and source.”
“Which statements in the public summaries still have no original report behind them?”
“Prepare a short, cited list of open questions for the next specialist appointment.”
It should not answer: “What disease do I have?” It can help a doctor inspect evidence and contradictions. It should not turn an incomplete record into a confident diagnosis or treatment plan.
What is still missing
Your public PDFs are useful and already indexed. But compiled summaries can omit the test method, reference range, image, signature, date or surrounding clinical note. Those details can change how a result should be read.
I am not asking because I doubt your account. The original report is what allows a qualified clinician to check it.
There is no need to send thousands of files. We can start with this limited set, check the process together and continue only if the result is useful.
Privacy and limits
The next step
If this structure looks useful, we can start with a 15-minute screen share. I will show you how the search works with the public material and where the current evidence stops. You do not need to share a private medical file for that first conversation.
I am not asking you for money, and I am not promising a diagnosis.
We can agree on privacy, access and handling rules before discussing any original record.