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

ChatGPT Health

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#441

Post by alcasa »

mangamadaiyan wrote: post #258
qgin wrote: post #126

I help take care of my 80-ish year old mother. ChatGPT figured out in 5 minutes the reason behind a pretty serious chronic problem that her very good doctors hadn't been able to figure out in 3 years. Her doctors came around to the possibility, tested out the hypothesis, and it was 100% right. She's doing great now (at least with that one thing). That's not to say that it's better than doctors or even that it's a goo…

Something to think about: perhaps the problem is with the duration of the appointment, and the difficulty of getting one in the first place? Elsewhere in the world, doctors can and do spend more than 12 minutes figuring out what's wrong with their patients. It's the healthcare system that's broken, and it _can_ be fixed without resorting to chatgpt. That it won't is the reality, though

Having worked in rare disease diagnostics in a non-US country with good public healthcare, most patients had to fight their way to the correct speciality to get their diagnosis. Without the persistence of family/specific doctors, its not possible.

AI might provide the most scalable way to give this level of access/quality to a much wider range of people. If we integrate it well and provide easy ways for doctors to interface with this type of systems, it should be much more scalable, as verification should be faster.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#442

Post by biofox »

comboy wrote: post #411
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of such anecdotes. I'm not saying its ill-intentioned, but the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement. I wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. How frequent are mis-diagnosis like this? How often is "user research" helping or hurting the process of getting good health outcome…

I also don't know. Additional point to consider: vast majority of doctors have no clue about Bayes theorem.

I work in biomed. Every textbook on epidemiology or medical statistics that I've picked up has had a section on Bayes, so I'm not inclined to believe this.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#443

Post by exabrial »

exabrial wrote: post #440

Going to a probabilistic system for something that can/should be deterministic sets off a lot of red flags. I’ve worked medical software packages, specifically a drug interaction checker for hospitals. The system cannot be written like a social media website… it has to fail by default, and only succeed when an exact correct solution was determined. This result must be repeatable given the same inputs. The consequence…

Despite this, given that health care prices in the USA continue to accelerate from relentless government interference and regulation, perhaps if the deterministic side of things could be figured out, we could monumentally decrease cost and increase access.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#444

Post by mcny »

jtbayly wrote: post #431
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of such anecdotes. I'm not saying its ill-intentioned, but the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement. I wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. How frequent are mis-diagnosis like this? How often is "user research" helping or hurting the process of getting good health outcome…

I think the ultimate answer is that people must take responsibility for their own health and that of their children and loved ones. That includes research and double-checking your doctors. True, the result is that a good number of people will be convinced they have something (eg. autism) that they don't. But the anecdotes are piled up into giant mountains at this point. A good number of people in my family have had a…

But we are idiots.

There's a reason why flour has iron and salt has iodine, right? Individual responsibility simply does not scale.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#445

Post by MSFT_Edging »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #379
mlmonkey wrote: post #156

My uncle had an issue with his balance and slurred speech. Doctors claimed dementia and sent him home. It kept becoming worse and worse. Then one day I entered the symptoms in ChatGPT (or was it Gemini?) and asked it for the top 3 hypotheses. The first one was related to dementia. The second was something else (I forget the long name). I took all 3 to his primary care doc who had kept ignoring the problem, and asked…

I've heard a lot of such anecdotes. I'm not saying its ill-intentioned, but the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement. I wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. How frequent are mis-diagnosis like this? How often is "user research" helping or hurting the process of getting good health outcome…

Generally the medical system is in a bad place. Doctors are often frustrated with patients who demand more attention to their problems. You can even see it for yourself on doctor subreddits when things like Fibromyalgia is brought up. They ridicule these patients for trying to figure out why their quality of life has dropped like a rock.

I think similar to tech, Doctors are attracted to the money, not the work. The AMA(I think, possibly another org) artificially restricts the number of slots for new doctors restricting doctor supply while private equity squeezes hospitals and buys up private practices. The failure doctors sit on the side of insurance trying to prevent care from being performed and it's up to the doctor who has the time/energy to fight insurance and the hospital to figure out what's wrong.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#446

Post by rl3 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #416
vidarh wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are, but for most of my interactions with GP's in recent years, and several with specialists, for anything much beyond the very basics, I've had to educate them , and it didn't require much knowledge to exceeds theirs on specific conditions. In one case, a specialist made arguments that were trivially logically fallacious and went directly against the evidence from treatment outcomes. In other cases, sheer…

Your personal experience is anecdotal and thus not as reliable as statistical facts. This alone is not a good metric. However your anecdotal experience is not only inline with my own experience. It is actually inline with the facts as well. When the person your responding to said that what you wasn’t backed up by facts I’m going to tell you straight up that, that statement was utter bullshit. Everything you’re saying…

>When the person your responding to said that what you wasn’t backed up by facts I’m going to tell you straight up that, that statement was utter bullshit.

The person you just replied to here isn't the same person I replied to.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#447

Post by usui »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #438
logicallee wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran a part of your comment through ChatGPT, and it said you're typing on a Turkish keyboard or have it set as your language. Is this true?

Wait. Why? What prompted this? The phrasing?

> I always check my blood test and mrı results with ChatGPT

MRI letters

Re: ChatGPT Health

#448

Post by threethirtytwo »

rl3 wrote: post #430
threethirtytwo wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality you'll find the vast majority of GPs are highly intelligent and quite good at problem solving. Is this statement supported by facts? If anything this statement is just your internal sentiment. If you claim it’s not supported by facts the proper thing you should do is offer facts to counter his statement. Don’t claim his statement isn’t supported by facts than make a counter claim without facts yourself.…

> Is this statement supported by facts? Yeah, the main fact here is called medical school.[0] > Read that fact. 800,000 deaths from misdiagnosis a year is pretty pathetic. And this is just deaths. Okay, and if that somehow flows from GPs (but not specialists!) being uniquely poor at problem solving relative to all other types of physicians—irrespective of wider issues inherent in the U.S. healthcare system—then I sta…

How is going to medical school a measurement of problem solving ability? You need to cite a metric involving ACTUAL problem solving. For example, a misdiagnosis is a FAILURE at solving a problem.

Instead you say “medical school” and cite the Harvard handbook as if everyone went to Harvard and that the medical book was a quantitative metric on problem solving success or failure. Come on man. Numbers. Not manuals.

> The human body isn't a 737

Are you joking? You know a 737 is responsible for ensuring the survival of human bodies hurdling through the air at hundreds of miles per hour at altitudes higher than Mount Everest? The fact that your risk of dying is lower going through that then getting a correct diagnosis from a doctor is quite pathetic.

This statement you made here is manipulative. You know what I mean by that comparison. Don’t try to spin it like I'm not talking about human lives.

> Ignorant.

Being a car mechanic is a respectable profession. They get the typical respect of any other occupation and nothing beyond that. I’m saying doctors deserve EXACTLY the same thing. The problem is doctors sometimes get more than that and that is not deserved at all. Respect is earned and the profession itself doesn’t earn enough of that respect.

Are you yourself a doctor? If so your response speaks volumes about the treatment your patients will get.

Post reply on HN