51–60 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting these numbers? Even a cursory search doesn’t put the numbers anywhere near such poor performance by real people. AI at 50% would be notably worse (also where are you getting that number?)
From radiologist AI training datasets, evaluated long-term/post-mortem.
Why AI is able to do everything except CEO and social media hype up work? Why engineers and doctors still need CEOs to do their job? From the votes I see that this is unpopular opinion but apparently there are close to 400 million companies in the world, of those 60K are publicly traded. I am sure that there's enough data to train top notch CEO on this, since they are required to keep records all the time and give sp…
> "and is “actually better than human beings,” he told the audience. “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?
Or did they run 5 tests, found zero inaccuracies and extrapolated to 10,000 but though 0 mistakes was too unbelievable and would give away the game.
Did they test the xray on only uncomplicated cases like young healthy people with no deformities? Or did they test it on complex cases too, maybe cases where there are multiple issues and some should be ignored, like elderly or people with different shaped bodies.
Also, what is "wrong" here? Is it a false negative, or a false positive? Is it a misdiagnosis? There's levels of wrongness, especially in the medical field.
>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?
Currently they are augmenting them with Indian radiologists and just sign off whatever they found.
When can we start replacing CEOs with AI?
The CEO is an employee of the board of directors and the stockholders. An AI CEO would no doubt be as ruthless as a human CEO, if not more so. In other words, I wouldn't anticipate any improvement in CEO behavior.
Here we go again. There's something about radiology that makes it the perfect bait for nerd sniping. I guess it's probably the misunderstanding that it is exclusively pattern recognition. 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 comp…
> 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?
Speaking of which... when people talk about "replacing" humans with AI, it makes me wonder if there's some kind of law we can push for that says "if you are part of the chain of command that signs off on AI being able to make final determinations, and that causes legal issues, you will be legally liable in place of the AI, since computers cannot be liable." Let a jury decide who, in the chain, bears what burden, case…
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…
Getting rid of radiologists is as much nonsense and saber rattling as suggesting using AI would harm patients.
The answer is clearly just the same as in software development or any other AI impacted field: Let the best professionals handle 10x+ the volume. What that means for all the rest of employees is the question of the century though...
> 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?
Hospitals already usually pay for malpractice insurance on behalf of the physicians.
My wife and I are both physicians. Our house doesn’t belong to either of us, strictly; it belongs to our marriage. You have to have a legal claim against both of us to put it in jeopardy.
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…
The issue with radiologists is that on average they are able to spot ~35% of correct diagnoses, while the world's best radiologists ~45%. AI might get us to ~50% which is ~15% better than an average radiologist (who still needs to review it).