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

CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

radiologybusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#101

Post by mountlatmus »

endymi0n wrote: post #58
bradreaves2 wrote: post #17

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…

Well, let's not forget the conflict of interest on the other side as well, of someone having invested decades of professional experience into a very lucrative field already getting obliterated by AI in some narrow fields. 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…

Well, let's not forget the conflict of interest on the other side as well, of some tech genai cuck having invested decades of professional experience into a very stochastic field where if they dupe enough hospital CEOs to harm their poor patients they may make enough money to afford to use the hospitals with real radiologists.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#102

Post by tsoukase »

After 20 years as a doctor, if any AI rivals my expertise (mental/neuro disorders) then, I believe, it will deserve the Nobel prize. There are so many fuzzy factors and interconnecting mechanisms in the human biochemical factory, examined with both rigor and intuition, that one cannot encode even for one patient. Medicine is easy as science but difficult as art.

Being on topic, the best is to enhance the doctor's opinion with an AI helper but never completely remove him/her.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#103

Post by ACCount37 »

tsoukase wrote: post #102

After 20 years as a doctor, if any AI rivals my expertise (mental/neuro disorders) then, I believe, it will deserve the Nobel prize. There are so many fuzzy factors and interconnecting mechanisms in the human biochemical factory, examined with both rigor and intuition, that one cannot encode even for one patient. Medicine is easy as science but difficult as art. Being on topic, the best is to enhance the doctor's opi…

Modern AI absolutely excels at wrangling "fuzzy factors and interconnecting mechanisms".

That's the one lesson we learned in this AI wave quick. Things that used to be "a computer can't do it because it's not a formal task and it doesn't have the intuition for it" are now well within AI's reach.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#104

Post by Freedom2 »

ricardobayes wrote: post #33
compounding_it wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hospitals are so concerned about cutting costs, getting sued is probably worse. However they are all insured against malpractice. I would be careful about insurers who could default if they find too many malpractice claims.

To be frank I'm more concerned about non-litiguous countries here as the potential downsides are much lower to roll-out "AI radiologists". Some of those countries have multi-month or even year-long waitlists for specialist consultations so it might even be more tempting from a healthcare management level.

It's an interesting one. From some ex-colleagues, waits in the UK can be up to 5 years for a consultation, not to mention the actual procedure itself. When asked if they would rather use AI for a first initial screening, almost all of those colleagues immediately said yes.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#105

Post by tsoukase »

ACCount37 wrote: post #103
tsoukase wrote: post #102

After 20 years as a doctor, if any AI rivals my expertise (mental/neuro disorders) then, I believe, it will deserve the Nobel prize. There are so many fuzzy factors and interconnecting mechanisms in the human biochemical factory, examined with both rigor and intuition, that one cannot encode even for one patient. Medicine is easy as science but difficult as art. Being on topic, the best is to enhance the doctor's opi…

Modern AI absolutely excels at wrangling "fuzzy factors and interconnecting mechanisms". That's the one lesson we learned in this AI wave quick. Things that used to be "a computer can't do it because it's not a formal task and it doesn't have the intuition for it" are now well within AI's reach.

Life is still hard to encode in digital format and there are two objects: the doctor's brain and the patient's body. Today the first step is the most difficult: the data to train on and the prompt to infere from, which, for medicine, need deeper and wider LLMs. Let's not talk about the acceptable failure rate and who takes the responsibility after a disaster.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#106

Post by readthenotes1 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #26

> "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?

Back before things got way worse, the false negative rate from a human human radiologist was 10 out of 10,000.

https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/medical-imaging/womens-...

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#107

Post by readthenotes1 »

beej71 wrote: post #64

"They're is almost certainly cancer there." Are you sure? "You're right to push back. Upon reinspection, it appears to be something else."

1000 in 10,000 mammograms come back positive by human radiologist.

50 in 10,000 are actually cancer.

It is interesting that the article did not say what the positive rate of detection was, or the false positive rate.

Either way, of course, The next step would be to have a human eyeball it. Probably in India or China or some other low-cost provider. Only the wealthiest can afford the immense salary of a US-based radiologist.

Fun fact: I know a radiologist and her visual acuity is freaky good. I doubt that AI will be able to beat her unless they force it into a multi-day marathon.

https://radltd.com/four-reassuring-statistics-about-abnormal...

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#108

Post by readthenotes1 »

bradreaves2 wrote: post #17

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…

That sounds like something a baseball umpire would say.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#109

Post by array_key_first »

jatora wrote: post #83
Betelbuddy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you are going to provide the references that will sustain this opinion, so we can elevate it to a fact...

Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you are using though, as though you are annoyed and simply expect sources to always be included with claims. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals.

If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources.

It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted.

To get around that, just don't provide numbers and don't speak authoritatively. It's very easy, I don't know why people speak authoritatively if they know they can't back it up.

Re: CEO of largest public hospital says he's ready to replace radiologists with AI

#110

Post by jatora »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #93
jatora wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Calm down You had a point until you did that.

Nah there's no reason to just accept someone's outbursts and not call them out for unsolicited high emotion lol
Post reply on HN