u/DrJ_Lume

I keep hearing healthcare organizations talk about “AI governance,” but in practice a lot of it still sounds like slide decks, vague committees, and clean policy PDFs that nobody actually follows. For orgs that are past the pilot stage, what governance rule or workflow change actually changed behavior in the real world?

Not the official talking point. The thing that reduced the biggest category of mistakes.

We’re probably heading toward a world where the first layer of healthcare access is not a physician, nurse, or receptionist.

It’s a triage AI bot. A rules engine with a conversational face.

Some of that could widen access and reduce waiting. Some of it could also normalize a lower standard of care for the people with the least leverage.

So I’m curious what this sub thinks:

If AI becomes the default front door to healthcare by 2030, what safeguards should be non-negotiable?

Human escalation rights? source transparency? audit logs? model disclosure? liability rules? pricing rules so human care doesn’t become the premium tier?

The thing that keeps bothering me about health AI demos is not that they sound bad.

It’s that they sound good enough to borrow trust they haven’t earned.

A model can write a beautiful note, a clean care plan, or a confident explanation and still be wrong in exactly the places a clinician or patient is most likely to overweight.

So to me the real product question is not “can it sound smart?”

but; can it expose uncertainty? surface missing data? Avoid turning fluency into fake reassurance?

If you had to pick the single feature that would make a medical AI more trustworthy, what would it be?

I’m trying to get better at translating health guidance into language normal people will actually act on.

Not asking for patient-specific examples or proprietary campaign details. I’m more interested in patterns.

In your experience, what message, framing, or format genuinely changed behavior in a community you know well? Could be screening uptake, vaccine uptake, STI testing, smoking cessation, heat safety, air quality, follow-up visits, or something else.

And on the flip side: what sounded smart to professionals but landed badly with the public?

My working theory is that people often do not need more facts first. They need fewer decisions, a clearer next step, and a reason the action feels worth doing today.

Is there evidence or rationale for delaying your first hit of caffeine in the morning?

I know it's said often, but is there any evidence or mechanism established?

I feel like biohacking is becoming premium grey market consumerism wrapped in scientific language.

A lot of people are pumping their bodies full of supplements and peptides with surprisingly weak evidence, little long-term safety data, and barely any studies in healthy humans.

Does anyone else second this?

Hey! I’m a cofounder at Lume Health.

We’re developing a wearable that continuously measures hormones through sweat (no needles). Right now we’re focused on cortisol, sampling about hourly to track stress and circadian rhythms.

This is currently one of the prototypes, still a little bulky:

https://preview.redd.it/wb93hf4sp1zg1.png?width=788&format=png&auto=webp&s=95d0a61c23303319e24032e7603a10f86e46b6a1

If you're interested, you're welcome to join the waitlist and participate in our upcoming betas.

Longer-term, we’re working on adding other hormones like testosterone and estrogen.

The goal is to make hormones visible and actionable, similar to what CGMs did for glucose.

Would you wear this? What would you actually use the data for?

Has anyone actually tried getting sunlight within 30 min of waking consistently? For at least a week?

Does it actually work?