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

281–290 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#281

Post by mhl47 »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #194
Veedrac wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's _git gud_ There are physical limits to detection and technical parameters that make some situations indeterminate even for the best of the 'gud'. It is frustrating that, hearing an argument from many different individuals over a long time, you assume that each speaker is missing the critical insight that you possess. > but the tools to make scalable, calibrated risk estimates based on large data dumps is getti…

Maybe there is a bias for action within our moral and legal system. Fundamentally if you can deal with uncertainty correctly or "perfectly" wouldn't more information always be better?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#282

Post by runako »

davidivadavid wrote: post #256
Barrin92 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that people who are concerned about their health and want more information is a problem It is a problem because there's evidence based standards for when examinations are indicated and prolong or improve a person's life. You being extremely concerned doesn't move that needle and subjecting you to tests simply because you're anxious is blatantly unethical and harmful to your psychological wellbeing. And nope this isn…

That's definitely an important point to consider, in fact something I think everyone in these conversations should be cognizant of, and also why it makes me believe the actual conversation should move to whether the device improves false positives/negatives rates or not (or at least has a chance to), which then might warrant wider access/use.

A better question is if people are going high-res, why not go high-res with tests whose accuracy is known, and for which there are useful, data-driven treatments?

Instead of casting a net of unknown quality every month, comparing against a null dataset (there does not exist a large dataset of these scans with outcomes for given markers).

Why not advocate cheap, easy blood/urine tests with higher frequency? Those tests do have large reference datasets with outcomes. And they have prescriptive value: there is likely more benefit to catching hypertension or diabetes earlier in more people.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#283

Post by arcticbull »

hereme888 wrote: post #276
arcticbull wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…

That's precisely where medicine is headed: personalized medicine. You [hopefully] won't have to become a rare missed diagnosis because you didn't fit the demographic for this or that screening test. Cost of genomic analysis is exponentially decreasing, and so much progress is happening so quickly. Consider for example how in cardiology we advanced from ASCVD's 10-yr prognosis, to the PREVENT 30-yr prognosis. And stil…

You’re dealing with populations here. Literally the odds of a positive being false would be over 90%. Much higher in the more rare conditions. I’m not exaggerating. That means every almost every follow up you do is a waste of time, money and limited resources, denying care to those who need it. Including you when you actually do need it. It also exposes you to the risks of unnecessary follow-ups like infection. Your expected outcome is worse this way.

The chance a positive is real is so low you may as well just point to a body part and get it biopsied.

A positive from this kind of test is statistically meaningless.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#284

Post by uberex »

This is a full body ultrasound?

Medical I don't care about futuristic sounding stuff. Just show me evidence based and clinically useful testing.

Use AI and new scans to help sure but prove it works otherwise this could be another dead end.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#285

Post by moralestapia »

arcticbull wrote: post #273
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #233

I think a lot of medical diagnosis could be solved with mass data collection if it was cheap enough. Right now, blood draws are somewhat routinely done because they provide a lot of human-interpretable indicators from a small number of values, and there is some evidence that e.g. "dogs can smell cancer" etc. (i.e. some diseases cause detectable odors). With a big enough data set of [all kinds of bio values, including…

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…

Many smaht people have already pointed that out.

It's news to no one that tests are imperfect.

Do you have any concrete solution to that? Anything of value?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#286

Post by OkWing99 »

For those who think this is a joke, there's no differnce between this concept and data centers in space concept, that's worth $2T. Both are not yet proven to work yet. At least they're not screwing the pubilc.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#287

Post by convnet »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #233

I think a lot of medical diagnosis could be solved with mass data collection if it was cheap enough. Right now, blood draws are somewhat routinely done because they provide a lot of human-interpretable indicators from a small number of values, and there is some evidence that e.g. "dogs can smell cancer" etc. (i.e. some diseases cause detectable odors). With a big enough data set of [all kinds of bio values, including…

It's a controversial and complicated idea. The downside, and the reason why most doctors do not recommend full body scans, is that every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan. This can lead to unnecessary testing, anxiety, and even unnecessary procedures. Many of these oddities flagged by the scan would never have caused any actual issues had the patient never been aware.

While there are many individual stories of full-body scans detecting early-stage cancer before it became symptomatic, there seems to be a general sense among doctors that implementing full-body scanning on a population level would lead to overall more harm than good. The thinking is that it is better to do regular targeted screenings for diseases that you're in a risk group for (e.g. colonoscopies, mammograms, cancer marker blood tests, etc.) rather than full-body scans.

I'm not a doctor, and I personally do find the idea of full-body scans very appealing, but I also know that if the scan detects a possible cancer, I wouldn't be able to just ignore it if the doctor tells me it's likely ok. Any time I felt any pain or any sort of symptom in that general area, I know I would worry about it. Maybe that's worth it for the potential life-saving results, but it definitely is a cost of this type of scan that needs to be acknowledged.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#288

Post by arcticbull »

moralestapia wrote: post #285
arcticbull wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…

Many smaht people have already pointed that out. It's news to no one that tests are imperfect. Do you have any concrete solution to that? Anything of value?

Yes, don’t do tests on asymptomatic low-risk people until you can demonstrate that a positive result has any meaning whatsoever.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#289

Post by Aeolun »

sberens wrote: post #65

I don't understand how people can hate on this. It's probably the most novel & ambitious consumer health device ever? Plus they're doing it fully bootstrapped. Let them cook!

I think I hate any single product announcement that involves "We have nothing, but we'll have something next year, and then we'll have 50k locations worldwide just two years later!"

Re: Midjourney Medical

#290

Post by appplication »

arcticbull wrote: post #273
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #233

I think a lot of medical diagnosis could be solved with mass data collection if it was cheap enough. Right now, blood draws are somewhat routinely done because they provide a lot of human-interpretable indicators from a small number of values, and there is some evidence that e.g. "dogs can smell cancer" etc. (i.e. some diseases cause detectable odors). With a big enough data set of [all kinds of bio values, including…

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…

So you are certainly correct but you can also tighten up your definitions for true positives as you have more information on your false positives. There may exist additional signal as well.

To your point though I think there is a difference between collecting and evaluating additional data sources and using them as diagnostic tools.

I suppose I fundamentally disagree with the implication of your post that there is no value in gathering further data for these reasons, it would seem to suggest we’re already diagnostically optimal and could not do better with additional signal.

Post reply on HN