Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Midjourney Medical

midjourney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#161

Post by tptacek »

nihonde wrote: post #108
tptacek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in fact very probably a bad idea. A good search term here is "incidentaloma". The balance of evidence currently appears to suggest that full body scans for asymptomatic patients are a net negative for health.

How brainwashed by the healthcare machine do you have to be to think that catching asymptomatic medical issues is a bad thing? The argument against is literally: - patients will worry too much, and - it will cost time and money to investigate. Both spurious rationales cooked up by an industry that is at least as hostile to humanity as it is helpful.

Yes, it's the healthcare industry's fault, they're brainwashing me into not getting more procedures. Sounds very plausible.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#162

Post by [deleted] »

dualvariable wrote: post #154
arcticbull wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayes theorem mostly. False positives rates are extremely important. I mean so are false negatives. So just, like, accuracy.

Timing is also important. I can predict cancer with 100% success, because everyone will get cancer, unless they die of something else first.

[deleted]

Re: Midjourney Medical

#163

Post by deadbabe »

sberens wrote: post #127
EduardLev wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

great, just confirm you also have >>$200MM revenue[0] and have also previously founded a hard tech startup! [0] https://www.theinformation.com/briefings/midjourney-revenue-...

If that’s your criteria, wait till you hear this way more successful guy’s pitch for data centers in space!

Re: Midjourney Medical

#164

Post by decimalenough »

> It starts by stepping into a shallow pool of golden light. You then begin to descend into the water. Your body passes through a ring of underwater sensors, each acting like a dolphin, using its echolocation.

...what. You descend into water and it scans your whole body? How do you breathe? How do you come out the other end?

Have they actually invented some type of novel scanning technology, or is this just AI slop gone wild?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#165

Post by carlosdp »

unholiness wrote: post #119

So, on the one hand, this is interesting! Reducing radiation from CT scans is a noble cause on its own. If on top of that it could make tomography cheaper and easier, you could imagine getting earlier detection of aneurisms, fibrosis, cirrhosis, thrombosis, stenosis, even plausibly cancerous masses (along with plenty of over-detection). On the other hand, nothing here substantiates this promise. We've got a video ren…

that's not a video render of a hypothetical device, that's a real video of the real working device, fwiw

Re: Midjourney Medical

#166

Post by lonely_wanderer »

nihonde wrote: post #141
lonely_wanderer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter point: a fixation on medical diagnoses can be counterproductive to living a good, happy, and healthy life. My implication is that data will lead to self-diagnosis, when maybe it’s not necessary. There’s a reason most people don’t get medical scans every checkup, they’re simply not necessary for the majority of (healthy) people.

In Japan, the government gives everyone a battery of full body tests at least once per year. I guess you know better than Japan, right? The whole argument that "you'll worry yourself sick" is such patronizing trash. It's obviously programming that came from the insurance industry, and you lapped it right up.

I think there’s actually a difference between getting a battery of tests from a set of doctors (overseen by the government) tailored to your risk factors and a company trying to sell a fully body scan which they think you should casually get all the time.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#167

Post by Veedrac »

Aurornis wrote: post #147

> enough to give regular, monthly scans to a billion people. There is a part of me that thinks it would be cool to get cheap full body scans. I like being able to see inside of myself. I can think of a lot of situations where the low-fidelity images coming out of this (they're not good compared to real medical imaging, if you've ever looking at MRI/CT up close) could be useful for coarse analysis of certain condition…

This style of argument has always bothered me, because the correction to misdiagnosis or mistreatment is not to stop looking, it's _git gud_.

For sure, we have to be realistic about what processes will systematically have error, and if we can't stop a doctor from doing bad things with a piece of data we should shield them from it, but the tools to make scalable, calibrated risk estimates based on large data dumps is getting better every year.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#168

Post by dyauspitr »

jawns wrote: post #97
themantalope wrote: post #34

radiologist here - example images don't look great

I'm scratching my head about why they would venture into an entirely different field like this, one with tremendous regulatory hurdles, if they know (and surely they must know) that radiologists are going to pan the results. It's like if LeBron announced he was switching to bowling and was going to revolutionize the sport, then rolled a gutter ball.

It’s because no one has heard from mid journey in a few years so they’re pivoting

Re: Midjourney Medical

#169

Post by gpm »

kanzure wrote: post #105
compass_copium wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, full body scans are awful for this--your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous.

> your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous. Um, that's still a tumor.

Yeah but it's not cancer.
Post reply on HN