21–30 of 121 posts
> Sandra Scott, MD, CEO of the One Brooklyn Health, a small hospital facing tight margins, agreed with this line of thinking, according to Crain’s. Does this CEO of a small hospital realize that their hospital will take the legal responsibility if there's no doctor to sue for malpractice?
> Sandra Scott, MD, CEO of the One Brooklyn Health, a small hospital facing tight margins, agreed with this line of thinking, according to Crain’s. Does this CEO of a small hospital realize that their hospital will take the legal responsibility if there's no doctor to sue for malpractice?
Okay so demand for imaging is up, so we should GET RID of the radiologists? How about we AUGMENT them with AI so that they can do their job better and faster? Why does it need to be either or?
“For women who aren’t considered high risk, if the test comes back negative, it’s wrong only about 3 times out of 10,000,” Lubarsky said. "
What's the false negative rate for human beings? And what about women that are considered high risk? Is it better or worse?
Brother-in-law graduated med school in the early 90s and has been a practicing ER physician since. We discussed this recently and he related that his advisors told him not to go into radiology back in the late 80s because the assumption was that computers were going to take over the field. He's not too far away from retirement and it's only now that we're starting to see some signs of this prediction from 30+ years a…
Here are my opinions, after a 20 year career as a diagnostic radiologist, and 45 years as a hobbyist computer programmer
1. There are no products currently on the market that can replace a radiologist.
2. If you can't fully and completely replace radiologists, you will still need them around in significant numbers.
3. Because of the infinite variation in human anatomy, physiology, and pathology, it is my opinion that AGI will be required to fully and completely replace radiologists.
4. Once AI is strong enough to replace radiologists, it will be strong enough to replace every other job as well.
5. Based on current RVU compensation models, any cost savings achieved by hospitals replacing radiologists with AI will quickly be lost by reimbursements being adjusted down. There is no way an insurance company will pay the same for an AI interpretation and a human interpretation.
6. There are significant unanswered medicolegal questions that will need to be addressed before AI can operate unsupervised.
In conclusion, I will work as a human radiologist until I retire in 10 years
>amid rising demand for imaging Okay so demand for imaging is up, so we should GET RID of the radiologists? How about we AUGMENT them with AI so that they can do their job better and faster? Why does it need to be either or?
I figured this was “CEO said a thing” journalism [1], but buried in the last paragraph is a real scorcher: > “Undeniable proof that confidently uninformed hospital administrators are a danger to patients: easily duped by AI companies that are nowhere near capable of providing patient care,” [Radiologist Dr.] Suhail told Radiology Business. “Any attempt to implement AI-only reads would immediately result in patient ha…