Midjourney Medical

Post by moffkalast » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:52 AM UTC

poilcn wrote: post #401

wkoszek wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All doctors say this, and that sort of drove me away from healthtech. As if there were absolutely no way to take a step in a direction of fixing it. The faster and earlier we start to scan everyone regularly, as long as scanning methods aren't invasive, the more certainty we'll have what to warn people about and what not to tell them. Perhaps with the regular screening (imaging quarterly, if the scan is fast) you cou…

Healthcare resources are very limited, you'd overwhelm it with lots of "yeah that's a defect, but 40% have it", things that would go away on its own, false positives, things that do not require urgent intervention, 10x increase of hypochondriacs and health deterioration caused by anxiety You'd have a system where every resource is allocated for diagnostics, but no medical staff to treat it Also a significant part of…

Post by mnicky » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

KingMob wrote: post #413

wkoszek wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All doctors say this, and that sort of drove me away from healthtech. As if there were absolutely no way to take a step in a direction of fixing it. The faster and earlier we start to scan everyone regularly, as long as scanning methods aren't invasive, the more certainty we'll have what to warn people about and what not to tell them. Perhaps with the regular screening (imaging quarterly, if the scan is fast) you cou…

It's more statisticians saying this, and not doctors per se. You run into issues of signal detection theory, false positives, and the lay confusion that Bayesian P(A|B) !== P(B|A). You're right that we could take steps to fix it, but unfortunately, those steps involve mass education that every human body has anomalies, and many of those should just be ignored. We'd get a wave of anxiety, lawsuits, and unnecessary int…

Post by ufo » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 7:57 AM UTC

rlt wrote: post #409

convnet wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a controversial and complicated idea. The downside, and the reason why most doctors do not recommend full body scans, is that every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan. This can lead to unnecessary testing, anxiety, and even unnecessary procedures. Many of these oddities flagged by the scan would never have caused any actual issues…

> every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan Would this be solved by routine scans, so you have a baseline you can compare against? Ignore anything slightly odd in the first scan but monitor for changes over time?

Post by hamburgererror » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 8:04 AM UTC

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #435

hamburgererror wrote: post #427

> Midjourney Spa Those visuals look straight out of the Backrooms

It reminded me more of Blade Runner, especially with the gold lighting.

Post by Sankozi » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 8:06 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #273

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #233

I think a lot of medical diagnosis could be solved with mass data collection if it was cheap enough. Right now, blood draws are somewhat routinely done because they provide a lot of human-interpretable indicators from a small number of values, and there is some evidence that e.g. "dogs can smell cancer" etc. (i.e. some diseases cause detectable odors). With a big enough data set of [all kinds of bio values, including…

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…