At the end of the day, a human is still needed to do the actual scans.
Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
281–290 of 486 posts
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless the law changes... That's it? I don't know. Doesn't sound like a very big obstacle to me. But I don't think AI will replace radiologists even if there was a law that said like, "blah blah blah, automated reports, can't be sued, blah blah." I personally think the consulting work they do is really valuable and very difficult to automate, we would be in an AGI world where radiologists get replaced, which seems…
> I don't know. Doesn't sound like a very big obstacle to me A lot of things are one law amendment away from happening and they aren’t happening. This could well become another mask mandate, which while being reasonable in itself, rubs people wrong way just enough to become a sacred issue.
Very few things the general public wants stays just one law amendment away for long. And almost all of those things are for the benefit of powerful people.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#283As a doctor and full stack engineer, I would never go into radiology or seek further training in it. (obviously) AI is going to augment radiologists first, and eventually, it will start to replace them. And existing radiologists will transition into stuff like interventional radiology or whatever new areas will come into the picture in the future.
I could see that as more radiology AI tools become available to non-radiologist medical providers, they might choose to leverage the quick feedback those provide and not wait for a radiologist to weight in, even if they could gain something from the radiologist. They could make a decision while the patient is still in the room with them.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#284I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.
I'm curious how many people would want a second opinion (from a human) if they're presented with a bad discovery from a radiological exam and are then told it was fully automated.
I have to admit if my life were on the line I might be that Karen.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#285I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
But this indicates lack of incentives to reduce healthcare costs by optimisation. If AI can do something well enough , and AI + humans surpass humans leading to costs reductions/ increased throughput this should be reflected in the workflows. I feel that human processes have inertia and for lack of a better word, gatekeepers feel that new, novel approaches should be adopted slowly and which is why we are not seeing t…
"AI" literally could not care if you live or die.
That's more than a problem of inertia
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point medical equipment is certified in some way for use. Could the same happen for imaging AIs?
The article mentions a system for diabetic retinopathy diagnosis that is certified and has liability coverage. It sounds like it's the only one where that occurs. For everything else, malpractice insurance explicitly excludes any AI assisted diagnosis.
Malpractice insurance tends to exclude the diabetic retinopathy one too.. the vendor has to provide insurance.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this indicates lack of incentives to reduce healthcare costs by optimisation. If AI can do something well enough , and AI + humans surpass humans leading to costs reductions/ increased throughput this should be reflected in the workflows. I feel that human processes have inertia and for lack of a better word, gatekeepers feel that new, novel approaches should be adopted slowly and which is why we are not seeing t…
If we were serious about reducing healthcare cost by optimization then we would be banning private equity from acquiring hospitals.
What is there to indicate "we" or anyone is serious about reducing healthcare costs? The only thing that will reduce costs is competitive pressure. The last major healthcare reform in the US was incredibly anti-competitive and designed with a goal of significantly raising costs but transferring those costs to the government. How could healthcare costs ever go down when the ONLY way for insurers to increase profits is for costs to go up as their profit is capped at a percentage of expenses.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#288I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.
> This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame.
Which is literally the case so far. No manufacturer has shown any willingness to take on the liability of self driving at any scale to date. Waymo has what? 700 cars on the road with the finances and lawyers of Google backing it.
Let me know when the bean counters sign off on fleets in the millions of vehicles.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.
I'm curious how many people would want a second opinion (from a human) if they're presented with a bad discovery from a radiological exam and are then told it was fully automated. I have to admit if my life were on the line I might be that Karen.
A bad discovery probably means your exam will be read by someone qualified, like the surgeon/doctor tasked with correcting it.
False negatives are far more problematic.
Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.
I'm curious how many people would want a second opinion (from a human) if they're presented with a bad discovery from a radiological exam and are then told it was fully automated. I have to admit if my life were on the line I might be that Karen.
Self-care is being Karen since when?