Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Machines to diagnose apnea have lots of sensors including electrodes, "chest-band" pulsometers, and "saturationmeters". It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated equipment in the past, that it will be necessary going forward. Machine learning is going to make tons of current diagnostic equipment look archaic in comparison. > I have asked doctors about capabilities of smart devices f…
> It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated equipment in the past, that it will be necessary going forward. Machine learning is going to make tons of current diagnostic equipment look archaic in comparison. As someone sais below "ML is not going to replace raw input from sensors." > Medical doctors are rarely up to date on the latest technology. I wouldn't be surprised if my doctor ha…
This isn't the first time or the last time that computers have been able to find patterns in much simpler measurements simply because they're not human. A similar example, although not quite as advanced, is the ability for a computer to extract sound information from a black and white video. Computers have been able to recreate sounds from behind double-paned glass by analyzing vibrations captured through videos. Humans have had to rely on various arrays of lasers, sonar, and other directional instruments to get 1/10th of the accuracy that a computer algorithm has been able to achieve from a simple, low-quality video camera. The point is that more machines and sensors doesn't always equal a better diagnosis. Better analysis of existing sensors and tech, even if it seems to be lower fidelity, can actually yield more accurate results.