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

OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 500 posts

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#111

Post by ianbutler »

Shog9 wrote: post #100
ianbutler wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much of what I know from women in my life is that the human element of medicine is almost a strict negative for them. As a guy it hasn't been much better, but at least doctors listen to me when I say something.

One of, if not THE biggest challenge in getting treatment is getting past insurance rules designed to deny treatment. This is much, much easier when you're able to convince a doctor (and/or trained medical staff) to argue on your behalf. If you can't get those folks to listen to you, that's probably not gonna happen. You might have to go through several different practices before you find a sympathetic ear. Now repla…

Sounds like we need to dismantle and replace this broadly dysfunctional system at multiple points. It's not like the US insurance landscape is anywhere close to the best way of handling healthcare if you look at many places in the world.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#112

Post by rowanG077 »

ForceBru wrote: post #76
rowanG077 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would personally vastly, vastly prefer to go to a robot doctor, who diagnoses, treats and nurses me. What exactly do I need from a human here? Except of course being the one making the system.

Emotional support. Some human doctors absolutely radiate confidence and a kind of "you're gonna be okay" attitude. For me, this helps a lot. I'm not sure a machine can do this.

You can hopefully get emotional support from your loved ones. If not a coach seems much more appropriate.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#113

Post by rowanG077 »

Shog9 wrote: post #100
ianbutler wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much of what I know from women in my life is that the human element of medicine is almost a strict negative for them. As a guy it hasn't been much better, but at least doctors listen to me when I say something.

One of, if not THE biggest challenge in getting treatment is getting past insurance rules designed to deny treatment. This is much, much easier when you're able to convince a doctor (and/or trained medical staff) to argue on your behalf. If you can't get those folks to listen to you, that's probably not gonna happen. You might have to go through several different practices before you find a sympathetic ear. Now repla…

Yeah that's mostly a US problem. Not a Healthcare problem in general.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#115

Post by sumeno »

criley2 wrote: post #53
gherkinnn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To answer your question: talking to a human. Medicine is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", as any patient ever can attest to. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that humans need other humans and human problems can't be solved with technology?

Technology is on a generational 10,000 year run of non-stop successfully solving human problems.

and causing them

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#116

Post by jamiequint »

gherkinnn wrote: post #35
pixel_popping wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors),…

To answer your question: talking to a human. Medicine is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", as any patient ever can attest to. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that humans need other humans and human problems can't be solved with technology?

This is extreme cope.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#117

Post by ddosmax556 »

gherkinnn wrote: post #35
pixel_popping wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors),…

To answer your question: talking to a human. Medicine is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", as any patient ever can attest to. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that humans need other humans and human problems can't be solved with technology?

I think there's a real space there, and a lot of what e.g. nurses and doctors do is talking to humans, and that won't go away.

But two facts are also true: a) diagnosis itself can be automated. A lot of what goes on between you having an achy belly and you getting diagnosed with x y or z is happening outside of a direct interaction with you - all of that can be augmented with AI. And b), the human interaction part is lacking a great deal in most societies. Homeopathy and a lot of alternative medicine from what I can see has its footing in society simply because they're better at talking to people. AI could also help with that, both in direct communication with humans, but also in simply making a lot of processes a lot cheaper, and maybe e.g. making the required education to become a human facing medicinal professional less of a hurdle. Diagnosis becomes cheaper & easier -> more time to actually talk to patients, and more diagnosises made with higher accuracy.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#118

Post by sorry_outta_gas »

Shog9 wrote: post #100
ianbutler wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much of what I know from women in my life is that the human element of medicine is almost a strict negative for them. As a guy it hasn't been much better, but at least doctors listen to me when I say something.

One of, if not THE biggest challenge in getting treatment is getting past insurance rules designed to deny treatment. This is much, much easier when you're able to convince a doctor (and/or trained medical staff) to argue on your behalf. If you can't get those folks to listen to you, that's probably not gonna happen. You might have to go through several different practices before you find a sympathetic ear. Now repla…

[dead]

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#119

Post by Aurornis »

Gell-Mann Amnesia kicks in hard as soon as the LLM topic changes to a profession other than our own. It’s much easier to believe an LLM can outperform someone else doing their job than to believe that it’s a good idea to replace your own work with an LLM.

The number in the headline isn’t even a good comparison because they asked doctors to make a diagnosis from notes a nurse typed up. Doctors are trained to be conservative with diagnosing from someone else’s notes because it’s their job to ask the patient questions and evaluate the situation, whereas an LLM will happily leap to a conclusion and deliver it with high confidence

When they allowed both humans and doctors access to more information about the case, the difference between groups collapsed into statistical insignificance:

> The diagnosis accuracy of the AI – OpenAI’s o1 reasoning model – rose to 82% when more detail was available, compared with the 70-79% accuracy achieved by the expert humans, though this difference was not statistically significant.

Talking to my medical professional friends, LLMs are becoming a supercharged version of Dr. Google and WebMD that fueled a lot of bad patient self-diagnoses in the past. Now patients are using LLMs to try to diagnose themselves and doing it in a way where they start to learn how to lead the LLM to the diagnosis they want, which they can do for a hundred rounds at home before presenting to the doctor and reciting the script and symptoms that worked best to convince the LLM they had a certain condition.

Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

#120

Post by avidiax »

stuxnet79 wrote: post #41
theshrike79 wrote: post #28

I'll repeat my idea on how this MUST be done: 1. AI gets data about the patient and makes a diagnosis. This is NOT shown to doctor yet. 2. Doctor does their stuff, writes down their diagnosis. This diagnosis is locked down and versioned. 3. Doctor sees AI's diagnosis 4. Doctor can adjust their diagnosis, BUT the original stays in the system. This way the AI stays as the assistant and won't affect the doctor's decisio…

5. Private Equity uses this valuable data to stack rank doctors based on how correct / AI-aligned their diagnoses are over time 6. Rankings are used to periodically "trim the fact" thus delivering more optimized cash flows to clinics that have been saddled with toxic debt 7. Sensing an opportunity AI providers start selling a $200 / month Data Leakage as a Service subscription to overworked physicians so that they ca…

Why would private equity want more competent doctors?

Incompetent ones order unnecessary tests and exhaust treatment possibilities, which drives up cost billed to insurance.

Only the insurance industry and perhaps licensing bodies can pressure to keep the quality floor high, at least in terms of accurate diagnosis and prevention of overtreatment.

Post reply on HN