Diderot's \textit{Encyclop\'edie} is a reference work from XVIIIth century in Europe that aimed at collecting the knowledge of its era. \textit{Wikipedia} has the same ambition with a much greater scope. However, the lack of digital connection between the two encyclopedias may hinder their comparison and the study of how knowledge has evolved. A key element of \textit{Wikipedia} is Wikidata that backs the articles with a graph of structured data. In this paper, we describe the annotation of more than 10,300 of the \textit{Encyclop\'edie} entries with Wikidata identifiers enabling us to connect these entries to the graph. We considered geographic and human entities. The \textit{Encyclop\'edie} does not contain biographic entries as they mostly appear as subentries of locations. We extracted all the geographic entries and we completely annotated all the entries containing a description of human entities. This represents more than 2,600 links referring to locations or human entities. In addition, we annotated more than 9,500 entries having a geographic content only. We describe the annotation process as well as application examples. This resource is available at https://github.com/pnugues/encyclopedie_1751

Britain's National Health Service has become a story of crisis. The coronavirus pandemic almost broke it -- and the hangover still might. This winter has played out against a backdrop of record waiting lists, ambulances unable to deliver patients to hospitals and picket lines of striking nurses. For a host of medical practitioners and scientists and tech firms and politicians, the NHS -- the U.K.'s biggest employer -- has finally reached a tipping point after 75 years, and the time has come to remake it. Programs and studies under way include "virtual wards" for remote care, family doctors paying energy bills for vulnerable patients, and scientists using artificial intelligence to predict the impact of cold and damp homes on children's health.

Within diagnostic reasoning there have been a number of proposed definitions of a diagnosis, and thus of the most likely diagnosis, including most probable posterior hypothesis, most probable interpretation, most probable covering hypothesis, etc. Most of these approaches assume that the most likely diagnosis must be computed, and that a definition of what should be computed can be made a priori, independent of what the diagnosis is used for. We argue that the diagnostic problem, as currently posed, is incomplete: it does not consider how the diagnosis is to be used, or the utility associated with the treatment of the abnormalities. In this paper we analyze several well-known definitions of diagnosis, showing that the different definitions of the most likely diagnosis have different qualitative meanings, even given the same input data. We argue that the most appropriate definition of (optimal) diagnosis needs to take into account the utility of outcomes and what the diagnosis is used for.