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

Midjourney Medical

midjourney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#741

Post by cseleborg »

moduspol wrote: post #643
tmhrtly wrote: post #571

> You want as much data as you can get about your health as quickly and as cheaply as possible. In other words, you want a technology optimized for getting as many “megabytes per second per dollar” of information about your body. This is so far from my vision of what I want from healthcare. I want a healthcare system that is optimised around A) proactively keeping me healthy, and B) reactively helping get back to hea…

The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations. I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise…

It's not about being against technology. It's that we know the simple rules that will keep us healthy most of the time, and they don't need any technology at all. Eat healthy meals. Exercise. Get enough sleep. Get enough rest. Don't smoke. Don't drink alcohol. Don't do drugs. Spend enough time with people. Serve others. Spend time outside.

Midjourney Medical looks amazingly cool. But it, and megabytes of data, is not what we really need.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#742

Post by moduspol »

jmye wrote: post #734
moduspol wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. And all doctors would be able to make better decisions.

> I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. What on earth do you think that load of garble means? "50-100 years further along" is absurd. Why do you think "more data" is necessarily meaningful, in a health context?

> What on earth do you think that load of garble means? "50-100 years further along" is absurd.

It seems straightforward. Imagine where medical care was 50-100 years ago, and then imagine they had all the data, resources, and practices we have today. In that case, they would have been 50-100 years further ahead than they were.

> Why do you think "more data" is necessarily meaningful, in a health context?

I think the only way to find out what data is meaningful is to collect and analyze more of it. That does not imply that all data is equally worth collecting.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#743

Post by senordevnyc »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #725
senordevnyc wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d want to see the data, and even if you had 10x the rate of false positives (to true positives) that resulted in unnecessary tests and procedures, it still could be worth it, depending on the severity of what you avoided with the testing.

> I’d want to see the data https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Go right ahead!

lol, hilarious.

I actually don't think we have the data available that I want, and even if we do, as many others here have pointed out, intentionally sticking our heads in the sand forever makes no sense.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#744

Post by moralestapia »

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #729
conroydave wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is why i always come to hacker news for the expert opinions. thank you for being critical yet optimistic.

You don't know if the opinion is expert. You don't know who that person is or what credentials they even have. Blindly trusting something that sounds right is a terrible way to inform yourself.

True.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

Re: Midjourney Medical

#745

Post by jmye »

estearum wrote: post #687
santiagobasulto wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you're not naming any cost related variable reflects your own current personal situation (privileged, I'd assume). But this is NOT the situation for most people in the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm also privileged. I can pay for pretty much any type of medical intervention that I'd need. So my variables are usually "comfort", "speed", "convenience", etc. But I know that this is NOT the most common scen…

The best thing you can do for low cost is 1) eat better food and 2) move more "More data" is quite literally irrelevant.

People don't do anything with the data they already have, to your point.

Stand on a scale at the same time of day, every day. Track your intake. Track your output. See your PCP for your free AWV-equivalent, and keep an eye on your metrics.

But no, we need GB of scanner outputs because some medically-illiterate (but still the smartest-guy-in-the-room) techbros want them for... reasons.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#746

Post by forshaper »

moduspol wrote: post #728
christina97 wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is saying that the goal should be something entirely different from gathering lots of data. Do you think the average person wants a higher resolution time series of their weight, or better access to a higher quality doctor, cheaper?

I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. And all doctors would be able to make better decisions.

In a more sane universe, we'd have been further along simply standardizing & centralizing patient records for providers, figuring out base rates, and communicating those base rates to providers.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#747

Post by senordevnyc »

Aurornis wrote: post #261
bastawhiz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I go to the doctor every year for a checkup without symptoms. Why a year? Why not every six months? Two weeks? Day? If the false positive rate is demonstrably low, I can't see the risk. People who think they need a doctor will go to a doctor with or without a fancy scan. People who want to play armchair physician will play armchair physician with or without a fancy scan.

> If the false positive rate is demonstrably low, I can't see the risk The false positive rate is the entire risk. When you go to the doctor for a physical they don't run all of the blood tests they can. They only run them for specific symptoms and for specific preventative measures where we've calculated that the benefits outweigh the risks of a false positive. Some tests have been removed from routine exams, or at…

They only run them for specific symptoms and for specific preventative measures where we've calculated that the benefits outweigh the risks of a false positive.

True to some extent, but you're ignoring the role that costs and insurance play here. Do you really think the personal physicians of billionaires and heads of state are only running a limited set of blood work because they're worried about false positives?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#748

Post by iandanforth »

jmhmd wrote: post #683

Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…

Not a physician. Some observations on these statements.

The predicate is "given how we practice medicine and the limits of humans ability to interpret the imaging modalities we have."

The more specific predicate is "for my specialty would this replace or prove superior to the tools that I have?"

Both of these are totally reasonable, however the history of medicine, and science in general, is that creating new ways to look at things has a tendency to reveal information that we never knew we needed.

For example, for years I thought of blood sugar as something that was either in a good or bad range. Then I tried a continuous blood sugar monitor. The full picture of the body's response to specific foods that I ate was eye opening. There's so much more to learn when you get a higher resolution (temporal in that case) view into your body.

Another wonderfully hopeful example is the retinal imaging ML work done by google. A completely non-invasive image of the retina for diabetic issues, that also happened to be able to predict things like age, sex, smoking status, previous cardiac events and more! Just take high-res pictures of things! The body is interconnected in ways that you can infer from one system so much about others.

So while I don't think anything the Dr. said is "wrong", I think it represents a very common blinkered mindset of pragmatic practitioners who need to deliver reliable performance daily.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#749

Post by paduc »

vmg12 wrote: post #726
jmhmd wrote: post #683

Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…

> "Incidentalomas" or unexpected, probably benign, findings are annoying to physicians For a lot of these things I wonder why they don't just do multiple scans just to see how things develop. Is it a cost issue?

Because people discovering "Incidentalomas" will be too freaked out to wait "just to see how things develop".

Re: Midjourney Medical

#750

Post by moduspol »

cseleborg wrote: post #741
moduspol wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations. I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise…

It's not about being against technology. It's that we know the simple rules that will keep us healthy most of the time, and they don't need any technology at all. Eat healthy meals. Exercise. Get enough sleep. Get enough rest. Don't smoke. Don't drink alcohol. Don't do drugs. Spend enough time with people. Serve others. Spend time outside. Midjourney Medical looks amazingly cool. But it, and megabytes of data, is not…

We only learned how to do a lot of those things because we gathered and analyzed data to find out how best to do them! "Eat healthy meals" means something completely different today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. How you exercise matters a lot. Smoking wasn't always considered unhealthy, nor was drinking. These "simple rules" and what they actually mean have been refined quite a bit.

You figure out this stuff by gathering and analyzing data. Whether or not this specific implementation will result in more meaningful actionable steps, I guess we'll see.

Post reply on HN