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

I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

antoine.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 748 posts

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#361

Post by fluidcruft »

Bratmon wrote: post #278
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #117

> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust. [...] AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way [...] but I don't know if I can fully trust AI either. This really is key. We know we can't trust the AI, but at the same time we're also more comfortable asking the AI for clarifications or confronting it. Not having a time-bound appointment or paying by the ho…

To provide a competing point of anecdata: A Gemini diagnosis saved me $3,000 in unnecessary repairs on my Civic.

YouTube has saved me at least that much in appliance repairs... and it doesn't even have an AI. It's amazing how valuable access to information can be.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#362

Post by Groxx »

zer00eyz wrote: post #280
Aurornis wrote: post #208

> They injected me with Traumeel, which is registered in Germany as a homeopathic medicine "without a therapeutic indication". This single sentence provides a huge clue about what’s going on: This person’s medical team is not good. It’s not hard to get an LLM to perform better than a team that is injecting homeopathic botanical formulations and performing procedures that aren’t indicated for the condition. I think th…

> I won't go into the details, but he suggested I get an MRI, which the clinic conveniently had available. And > They performed shockwave therapy on my shoulder (a procedure that may not be effective, but is unlikely to cause any harm) Its not just about LLM's being better, its about people not trusting DR any more: https://www.physiciansweekly.com/post/the-erosion-of-trust-i... If we want to fault the article for an…

Any medical-field-position that recommends homeopathic stuff is instantly in my "full of shit and not trustworthy on anything" list, and I'd go elsewhere immediately and file complaints anywhere I could. There's no excuse at all, they're either fools or scammers, and I want neither anywhere near my (or anyone else's) health.

That said, while I do see homeopathic stuff with that name, it's worth verifying that it isn't just a naming conflict. They're not always unique, particularly across countries, and Traumeel seems to be more of a brand than a specific thing.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#363

Post by serial_dev »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #117

> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust. [...] AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way [...] but I don't know if I can fully trust AI either. This really is key. We know we can't trust the AI, but at the same time we're also more comfortable asking the AI for clarifications or confronting it. Not having a time-bound appointment or paying by the ho…

These tools can’t reliably fix a 4px misalignment on my icon, better ask them about a medical report… but honestly, I would do the same.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#364

Post by kgeist »

azan_ wrote: post #354
kgeist wrote: post #341

A few years ago (before the AI craze), I was misdiagnosed with tuberculosis. I had a chronic cough, and an outsourced radiologist at a clinic found signs of tuberculosis. The findings were sent to the city's tuberculosis hospital, as required by the country's law. The doctors there took the radiologist's conclusion at face value and required me to stay at their hospital for at least 8 months under a strict, prison-li…

How is it possible? You can't diagnose tuberculosis just based on imaging and tuberculosis hospital has to know that!

Yeah, I know! It was strange. They gave me a test, and it came back negative, but they insisted it was negative because I had "latent tuberculosis," which supposedly wasn't detectable by the test yet but was about to become active.

I forgot to mention that, besides getting a second opinion from another radiologist, I also took a more modern test at another private clinic. That test has better detection rates than the one the state clinic used, and it came back negative too.

I have suspicions they had some kind of government quota to keep the hospital staffed with patients in order to receive funding. Or they were just completely incompetent. I pushed back by bringing them another radiologist's report and the results of a better test that I paid for myself, so I guess they decided to back down.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#365

Post by crypttales »

ambicapter wrote: post #227
sxg wrote: post #6

I'm a radiologist but can't really weigh in without seeing the full 3D MRI dataset. Regarding this point: > They performed shockwave therapy on my shoulder even though a recent clinical practice guideline says clinicians should not use or recommend shockwave therapy for rotator-cuff tendinopathy without calcification; I was told during ultrasound that there was no calcification. Ultrasound isn't a great way to assess…

> So an ultrasound report can state there are no calcifications while a plain radiograph can report the presence of calcifications without being inconsistent. Obviously very confusing to patients and people unfamiliar with medical jargon This is being overly nice, I think. Anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot imo. You would have to assume that every type of diagnosis instrument has infinite clarity and is a…

[dead]

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#366

Post by lostlogin »

uecker wrote: post #319
lostlogin wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘Makes up’ is inaccurate for sure. But it’s not strictly true to call it acquired data either. After years of collecting artifacts and errors, I have more and more respect for the tool. But it’s jarring. I open a sequence, decrease the acquired resolution, add the AI and get a scan that’s quicker and higher resolution. It’s an amazing time to be an MR tech.

It is amazing. It is the result of two decades of research in image reconstruction algorithms. The machine learning is part of it, but that it is sold as "AI" has probably more to do with marketing.

It certainly has a lot of marketing behind it.

https://marketing.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/2861d15...

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#367

Post by malfist »

wwweston wrote: post #350
margorczynski wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case with human "experts"? If you had encounters with doctors, mechanics, etc. you'll know you can get a completely different diagnosis for the same problem which obviously means (in most cases) that the person you thought an expert is wrong. What is needed are studies that will take a cold look at the actual results because AI seems to be required to be perfect or it is useless. It just needs to be as…

We have systems around humans that exist to manage expertise gaps, credibility signals, and accountability. This is part of what makes humans as good as they are, along with specialized training and some measure of meritocratic selection. We license and regulate and account and litigate to make a system that responds and improves. Some of this might be applicable to LLMs, but some isn’t and much of it would be resist…

I've been going through PT for a hypermobility disorder related injury and I've use an AI to help me figure out "interview questions" to see if a PT knows anything about hypermobility or is willing to learn. I found it helpful to select a new PT after my first PT I trusted made things worse by prescribing stretches and no load progression from rest and recovery back to deadlifts

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#368

Post by IanCal »

Paracompact wrote: post #360
ambicapter wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So an ultrasound report can state there are no calcifications while a plain radiograph can report the presence of calcifications without being inconsistent. Obviously very confusing to patients and people unfamiliar with medical jargon This is being overly nice, I think. Anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot imo. You would have to assume that every type of diagnosis instrument has infinite clarity and is a…

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Off topic but I have always felt this seemed like his misunderstanding rather than theirs. It’s an odd question, but it’s a very sensible point to make if Babbage has just told you this will solve the problem of mistakes in calculations - humans being involved at the start means human error still plagues the output.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#369

Post by igortg »

kgeist wrote: post #341

A few years ago (before the AI craze), I was misdiagnosed with tuberculosis. I had a chronic cough, and an outsourced radiologist at a clinic found signs of tuberculosis. The findings were sent to the city's tuberculosis hospital, as required by the country's law. The doctors there took the radiologist's conclusion at face value and required me to stay at their hospital for at least 8 months under a strict, prison-li…

I had a similar experience. My son had pneumonia and was still filling pain after 10 days of antibiotics. Took an X-Ray to three different doctors, and only one got the right diagnosis (pleural effusion). It's really something we should have a central place with top notch professionals looking at it, instead having each doctor to find by themselves.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#370

Post by maxnevermind »

aspenmartin wrote: post #290
chmod775 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a post every other month where some dude who put nonsense information online celebrates because it actually ended up in some frontier models weights. If it's easy enough that some randos can do it for fun, what do you think happens when there's commercial interest behind it? Obviously companies are going try nudging AI towards recommending whatever they're selling. It's a logical extension of SEO - and that's…

It's not really a problem. We're out of natural tokens anyway. The future is synthetic verifiable traces (already the way we train coding agents).

> synthetic verifiable traces

What does it mean, Is it like when somebody used some coding agent to develop a feature and later input prompts and a resulting PR can be used for training by a presumption that final PR was a correct implementation of a prompt?

Post reply on HN