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

Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

aisnakeoil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#61

Post by mannykannot »

yieldcrv wrote: post #59
mannykannot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the entire medical industry is failing at communicating that. Rebutting hypobolic extrapolations from literally one datum is still not something that the entire medical industry - or just my PCP and cardiologist, for that matter - should be prioritizing (unless they have a patient doing just that), even if the prevalence of such claims has increased over the last decade or so. The afforementioned professionals…

many demographics have well studied issues of being validated at all It’s not hyperbolic, it’s a relatable shared experience, which are the words I used for a reason. as its not a single datum, while also avoids any attempt to quantify it at all

Ipnon's claim was explicitly stated to follow from just one datum, thus:

>The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this....

And the first claim:

> If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke.

If that's not hyperbolic, where's your evidence that it even just close to being the case?

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#62

Post by yieldcrv »

mannykannot wrote: post #61
yieldcrv wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many demographics have well studied issues of being validated at all It’s not hyperbolic, it’s a relatable shared experience, which are the words I used for a reason. as its not a single datum, while also avoids any attempt to quantify it at all

Ipnon's claim was explicitly stated to follow from just one datum, thus: >The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this.... And the first claim: > If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke. If that's not hyperbolic, wher…

yes, the word “never” is hyperbolic, while the words “relatable shared experience” are not

moving on

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#63

Post by yieldcrv »

rscho wrote: post #24
yieldcrv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multimodal language models have already been good at accepting imaging input and noticing things that professionals overlook I don't see how a meeting patient in person requirement is an issue. They can listen to the patient, have a context window large enough to analyze their medical history and environmental factors, look at charts, and diagnostics of tissues and still have a much greater EQ, ability to affirm, and…

It is said that "90% of diagnosis is made on patient history". That's the whole problem for machines. We'll need machines able to converse and integrate patient appearance, behaviour etc. as well as humans, and reliably derive the appropriate conclusions from that before we get efficient medical AI. We'll see how fast progress can be made, but from what I see from chatGPT and the like, I seriously doubt the current A…

relevant today

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/health/chatgpt-ai-doctors...

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#64

Post by mannykannot »

yieldcrv wrote: post #62
mannykannot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ipnon's claim was explicitly stated to follow from just one datum, thus: >The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this.... And the first claim: > If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke. If that's not hyperbolic, wher…

yes, the word “never” is hyperbolic, while the words “relatable shared experience” are not moving on

In this case, it would still be incorrect and uninformed if one were to substitute "frequently" or "routinely" for "always". The problem is not just a careless choice of qualifier.

I specifically directed my reply to you to where you had said, in response to Rscho's criticism of Ipon's hyperbolic claim, "then the entire medical industry is failing at communicating that", where "that" is what Rscho said in response to Ipon's hyperbole. I stand by my position that it can hardly be faulted for not preemptively responding to such nonsense, regardless of whatever you see/imagine as being relatable shared experiences.

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#65

Post by binary132 »

defrost wrote: post #56
binary132 wrote: post #27

So, if I as a 38-year-old had a mild liver impairment which could reduce my life expectancy to 60 (22 years from now) I should get priority over a 60-year-old with a debilitating, excruciating condition which will end his life in six months, merely because his life expectancy with the transplant may only be 70? That’s an outrageous and obscene utility calculation to propose and it should be obviously so to just about…

> That’s an outrageous and obscene utility calculation to propose Welcome to the reality of triage .. all decisions are bad from some PoV or another, some are arguably less bad. Oh, to live in a world of infinite matching organs and unlimited theatre slots on demand.

what’s your point?

Re: Is the UK's liver transplant matching algorithm biased against younger patients?

#66

Post by defrost »

binary132 wrote: post #65
defrost wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s an outrageous and obscene utility calculation to propose Welcome to the reality of triage .. all decisions are bad from some PoV or another, some are arguably less bad. Oh, to live in a world of infinite matching organs and unlimited theatre slots on demand.

what’s your point?

Just the obvious one ..

Unless there's a ready supply of surgeons, theatre space, and organs on demand, then there will always be examples of "outrageous and obscene utility calculation" in medical pipelines.

That's called triage and there are literally bookshelves on the subject.

Given it was your comment that appeared shocked by "outrageous and obscene utility calculation" you might want to look into a matter that dates back further in time than The Lady with the Lamp dealing with incoming cases in one of the Crimean wars.

Post reply on HN