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

Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#61

Post by Arnt »

knuththetruth wrote: post #56
Arnt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reply is a bit factual... I want to talk about why it came to be this way. Medicine has advanced to a point where some serious illnesses can be kept at bay for decades. People with some formerly mortal diseases can get medicines that cost $100k/year and/or professional help every day, and live well for thirty years. This means that each of rich societies has to choose: 1. Raise health insurance rates until the b…

Option 4: Decommodify every aspect of healthcare, from the education of doctors to the hospitals themselves. Invest massively in basic medical science research and provide the corresponding advancements and technologies free of charge to the healthcare system. These treatments cost 100K because of the economic arrangements from which they emerge, not because that’s some inherent (or even sane) price. For a more concr…

€100k per year isn't very many hours of professional attention per day. A nurse for an hour or two per day, a physician once or twice per week, an occasional consultation with another, some expensive equipment, and of course education and general facilities for all these professionals... it adds up.

How much is the fully loaded cost of one of your own your own working hours?

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#63

Post by class4behavior »

taneq wrote: post #46
bane wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression that much of medicine is one of those strange practices that looks kinda like science, but really isn't. Medical practice appears to work more like a highly evolved guild system than any other kind of recognizable scientific activity. It's probably far beyond the point where its necessary to bring in actual scientific practices, so I can't say it's on the cusp of a sweeping change. One of the pro…

The simple fact that "evidence-based medicine" needs a special name to describe it, rather than all medicine being evidence-based, is still absolutely mindblowing to me.

Uh, you're confusing this with the distinction made between Western standard medicine and folk or alternative medicine practices.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#64

Post by knuththetruth »

Arnt wrote: post #61
knuththetruth wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 4: Decommodify every aspect of healthcare, from the education of doctors to the hospitals themselves. Invest massively in basic medical science research and provide the corresponding advancements and technologies free of charge to the healthcare system. These treatments cost 100K because of the economic arrangements from which they emerge, not because that’s some inherent (or even sane) price. For a more concr…

€100k per year isn't very many hours of professional attention per day. A nurse for an hour or two per day, a physician once or twice per week, an occasional consultation with another, some expensive equipment, and of course education and general facilities for all these professionals... it adds up. How much is the fully loaded cost of one of your own your own working hours?

I think a more useful question is how is it that developed countries like the US and UK have widespread unemployment, but no shortage of need of this kind of work? Perhaps the economy is massively misaligned in who and what it serves.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#65

Post by Eridrus »

b34r wrote: post #23

I’m sure insurance companies will be glad to get their hands on this to use it as an excuse to deny coverage.

Insurance is all about pricing risk accurately, so yes, of course, these ideas will be used to price the risk more accurately.

The problem isn't that insurers are horrible people, it's that insurance is a bad fit for healthcare.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#66

Post by Arnt »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #54
Arnt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reply is a bit factual... I want to talk about why it came to be this way. Medicine has advanced to a point where some serious illnesses can be kept at bay for decades. People with some formerly mortal diseases can get medicines that cost $100k/year and/or professional help every day, and live well for thirty years. This means that each of rich societies has to choose: 1. Raise health insurance rates until the b…

You've missed the way that it's done absent state intervention, which is perhaps a modification of #3: Decide on a per-patient basis, treating the illness when the individual or their family can afford the cost of treatment.

There are many minor variations. Another common one is the variation where you you pick an insurance plan before your illness, and the insurer later decides on the details on behalf of all of its insured individuals. And... but they're all minor variations.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#67

Post by Arnt »

knuththetruth wrote: post #64
Arnt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

€100k per year isn't very many hours of professional attention per day. A nurse for an hour or two per day, a physician once or twice per week, an occasional consultation with another, some expensive equipment, and of course education and general facilities for all these professionals... it adds up. How much is the fully loaded cost of one of your own your own working hours?

I think a more useful question is how is it that developed countries like the US and UK have widespread unemployment, but no shortage of need of this kind of work? Perhaps the economy is massively misaligned in who and what it serves.

From a quick look the NHS alone appears to employ slightly more health professionals than there are long-term unemployed in the UK, so perhaps the economy is massively misaligned... and perhaps it isn't.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#68

Post by baxtr »

everdev wrote: post #60
baxtr wrote: post #7

A very close relative of mine passed away 2 weeks ago. She had cancer for 2 years and when she was first diagnosed the doctors would give her 8-10 “good years”. Well... When she died, I was shocked to learn that very few data points of her sichkness and treatment history would be preserved for later analysis. Doctors work almost entirely on their gut feeling and probably some clinical studies with n being very small.…

Sorry for your loss. When it's the other way around and someone survives 10 years on a "2 years left to live" diagnosis, we seem quick to credit their strength, determination, spirituality, etc., rather than looking at how inaccurate the original prediction might have been.

Thanks. Absolutely. And of course, I’m aware that I’m quite emotional about this right now. But I think the other way around like you describe is better because you’re forced to say goodbye, and can enjoy whatever extra time comes afterwards. I have the feeling that I’ve missed that opportunity (which is of course my fault, but still)

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#69

Post by nsporillo »

Symmetry wrote: post #52
jand wrote: post #4

I would feel quite unconfortable if every action taken (or not taken) by medic staff has to be second-guessed simply because there are financial incentives derived from this research. Customer A does not receive full medical support because "he's dying anyway"? Is there a way to ensure that such cruel use of the research is prohibited?

Heroic efforts on futile attempts to keep dying patients alive have a huge cost in human suffering and we, as a society, really ought to stop making them. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die...

Thank you for linking these. Extremely compelling articles that everyone ought to read and consider.

Re: Google Is Training Machines to Predict When a Patient Will Die

#70

Post by joker3 »

itschekkers wrote: post #25

I hate to pour cold water on this, but medical researchers have been predicting mortality for years. For example, here's a paper from the 1980's also predicting when a patient will die, also using a couple of thousands of patients' data: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3816253 And, Google's paper wasn't published in Nature, it was in a new open access journal owned by Nature. In academia, that is like the differenc…

Google's innovation isn't predicting mortality. It's predicting mortality based on data that was hidden from previous models. That's very likely where all of the improvement is coming from, but since it's hard to write a good headline or lede based on that, we get this instead.
Post reply on HN