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

371–380 of 748 posts

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

#371

Post by lostlogin »

engeljohnb wrote: post #222
lostlogin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, AI is coming for your job. Full sarcasm, is there one that’s that’s more immune?

I don't completely understand what you mean, but I can tell you for my job, having AI tell you how to get the images is (without exaggeration) like putting someone who's never played an instrument on stage and saying "don't worry, the AI will show you how to do it."

I did a lot of cardiac MR and often GA cases. Sometimes after the scan an echo would be done.

I know my anatomy and etc and have done a short stint in ultrasound. I have no idea what you are doing or looking at and can identify pretty much nothing.

Echo techs are going to be around a lot longer than MR techs.

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

#372

Post by Paracompact »

mrlongroots wrote: post #337
john-tells-all wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between a _puzzle_ and a _mystery_. In a puzzle, the goal state is known, and as more pieces - data - appears, the goal gets closer. You know how far you are from the goal. A mystery is worse. With each additional piece of data, the goal gets farther away. Everything is more and more confusing. (Popularized by Malcom Gladwell)

Maybe I am missing something but I just find this wrong. Everything is a puzzle: there is one "Truth" or one diagnosis. You (a smart human) should be able to converge on it by cross-examining your LLMs. By themselves, they have no interest in revealing this, no stakes, which makes them tools only useful at the hands of a capable investigator.

> You (a smart human) should be able to converge on it by cross-examining your LLMs.

What makes you think this is fundamentally different from cross-examining ELIZA? There is no guarantee that the LLM will help you converge on anything. Indeed actually calling out an LLM on BS tends to eventually produce an "I don't know and can't help you further" answer (as it should).

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

#373

Post by fluidcruft »

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.

I haven't seen it marketed as "AI" by GE, Siemens or Philips. They usually gesture at "deep learning" or "compressed sensing".

No radiologist is buying "AI" scanners. Radiologists are probably among the most jaded of an audience about the word "AI" due to decades of undelivered promises. AI is synonymous with "worthless trash" to them, not to mention everyone says "AI" is going to put them out of work. lol

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

#374

Post by keeda »

operatingthetan wrote: post #220
singpolyma3 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That presumes that we have a definition of "thinking" or that we know that anything is "thinking" when in fact neither is true. The problem is real but I don't think positing a philosophical root is helpful

The claim that we are assigning human-like agency to a machine with none is simple and factual.

Wait, where are we assigning human-like agency in this case? Agency to me means the ability to do something by itself. Here the LLM is not doing anything, it is just responding with information to queries from people, that those people may then act on. (Which you can say about Google searches too, yet we don't ascribe agency to Google.)

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

#376

Post by prdonahue »

tiahura wrote: post #16
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…

Why isn’t diagnostic ultrasound used in orthopedics? They inspect fetus hearts and other organs everyday, why not shoulders? Seems much cheaper and faster.

They're used quite a bit for nerve entrapment—both in diagnosing and treating.

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

#377

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

sxg wrote: post #120
foobarian wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I'm reading and looking up these words you guys are saying and it is starting to look exactly like the symptoms I have been having with my own right shoulder! I feel like a giant gaping rabbit hole just opened up next to my desk.

We're discussing calcific tendinitis ( https://radiopaedia.org/articles/calcific-tendinitis?lang=us ). If you think you have it, you can see a doctor and consider shoulder radiographs to start.

If you think you have it, then you don't. If you have it, you won't think, you'll know.

Spoiler: because it hurts like hell.

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

#378

Post by NonHyloMorph »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #349
Esophagus4 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever let the LLMs “discuss” with each other to see if that would give better answers? You might end up with the answer from the most persuasive LLM, but you might also end up with better results. Wonder if there is a paper out there on this.

The problem with trying to write a paper is the results depend on RNG.

That doesn't make it differrnt from any other problem measured by statistical significance in averaged over a big enough series of comparisons, no?

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

#379

Post by ethbr1 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #321
ethbr1 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again the problem is not dictation, or LLMs. The problem is humans ignoring their responsibility to check the output of a machine. 100%. Also, management. I wish someone would go ahead and coin an AI version of Amdahl's law that states the work speedup from AI is dependent on amount of unverified AI output used. Iow, if you 1:1 verified everything, there would be no time savings. Ergo, you get management saying (1)…

But that’s trivially false. There is an entire category of work where it is hard to come up with an answer and easy to verify the answer, which means that if you verified everything there would still be a large time savings.

I would question whether that holds in the practical LLM automation space.

Can you think of any real life examples where an LLM is likely to be used?

I think in practice what you're saying is there are problems where there exist efficient deterministic verification methods, and I'm sure that's true.

But that's not the bulk of everyday work LLMs are being asked to do nowadays across industry.

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

#380

Post by mrlongroots »

Paracompact wrote: post #372
mrlongroots wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I am missing something but I just find this wrong. Everything is a puzzle: there is one "Truth" or one diagnosis. You (a smart human) should be able to converge on it by cross-examining your LLMs. By themselves, they have no interest in revealing this, no stakes, which makes them tools only useful at the hands of a capable investigator.

> You (a smart human) should be able to converge on it by cross-examining your LLMs. What makes you think this is fundamentally different from cross-examining ELIZA? There is no guarantee that the LLM will help you converge on anything. Indeed actually calling out an LLM on BS tends to eventually produce an "I don't know and can't help you further" answer (as it should).

> There is no guarantee that the LLM will help you converge on anything.

Absolutely. The guarantee does not come from the LLM. The LLM is a simply an improved version of Google Search.

The guarantee can only come from a systemic application of epistemic discipline and reasoning, which is very much (smart) human territory.

Put it another way, I could make good decisions with/without LLMs, with some uncertain diagnostics as input. I would have to trawl through 50 papers myself, and it is possible that my decision arrives 5 years too late as a result. LLMs enable trawling and do some of the legwork in connecting the dots, but are ultimately only as capable as the orchestrating human.

Post reply on HN