81–90 of 121 posts
I find the whole field of radiology to be utterly baffling. There are doctors who specialize in, and hopefully understand, specific diseases and/or parts of the body. But we have radiologists who are supposed to be able to look at images, taken by quite a variety of technologies and parameters, of any part of the body, and are expected to accurately interpret the findings, possibly without any relevant context. In my…
On the one hand it's a science: controlled experiments, calculated dosages, all based on an understanding of low level biology, fancy imaging methods, measuring currents in people's bodies and so on.
On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of "he seems fine to me", "tests came back fine but something seems off to me so let's try another test", "doesn't seem to be responding to this drug, let's try the other one", "in my experience this drug works better than that one". It seems like a pretty big chunk of subjectivity is actually a part of the field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with radiologists is that on average they are able to spot ~35% of correct diagnoses, while the world's best radiologists ~45%. AI might get us to ~50% which is ~15% better than an average radiologist (who still needs to review it).
And you are going to provide the references that will sustain this opinion, so we can elevate it to a fact...
I find the whole field of radiology to be utterly baffling. There are doctors who specialize in, and hopefully understand, specific diseases and/or parts of the body. But we have radiologists who are supposed to be able to look at images, taken by quite a variety of technologies and parameters, of any part of the body, and are expected to accurately interpret the findings, possibly without any relevant context. In my…
I'd take it further/slightly parallel direction. Medicine is at the same time a science and a weird "feel and experience" area. On the one hand it's a science: controlled experiments, calculated dosages, all based on an understanding of low level biology, fancy imaging methods, measuring currents in people's bodies and so on. On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of "he seems fine to me", "tests came back fine…
Those experiments are so hilariously expensive these days, and the results are often not actually fully published, so good data is often unavailable.
> calculated dosages
Often calculated based, in large part, on researchers’ vibes and their vibes when designing experiments.
> all based on an understanding of low level biology
There are many, many drugs with partially or even almost fully unknown mechanisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to be “source?” about it but your numbers are so far off what every search result is showing.
I am not saying those are for all diagnoses, but for some tricky yet important ones (i.e. detecting them early might save your life).
> Sandra Scott, MD, CEO of the One Brooklyn Health, a small hospital facing tight margins, agreed with this line of thinking, according to Crain’s. Does this CEO of a small hospital realize that their hospital will take the legal responsibility if there's no doctor to sue for malpractice?
Speaking of which... when people talk about "replacing" humans with AI, it makes me wonder if there's some kind of law we can push for that says "if you are part of the chain of command that signs off on AI being able to make final determinations, and that causes legal issues, you will be legally liable in place of the AI, since computers cannot be liable." Let a jury decide who, in the chain, bears what burden, case…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you are going to provide the references that will sustain this opinion, so we can elevate it to a fact...
Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you are using though, as though you are annoyed and simply expect sources to always be included with claims. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals.
I did not even call the claim false, even if it almost deserve it...I said, essentially ...let's see the references so we can treat this as fact rather than opinion.
What you did is write a longer and more prescriptive comment about my tone than anything anyone has written about the actual substance :-)). You tone policed a one line request for evidence while giving a complete pass to unsourced medical statistics presented as fact.
If we are ranking things that erode discourse quality, I would say you are higher on the list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I was going to reduce labor costs by +1M/year, I would rather eliminate 1 CEO then 10 radiologists. I would much rather have 1 unemployed CEO in society than 10 unemployed radiologists. At the very least, "AI" should replace through attrition rather than direct layoffs...
> If I was going to reduce labor costs by +1M/year, I would rather eliminate 1 CEO then 10 radiologists. This is a false dichotomy. Why not both? I think it's a bit strange to hope or assume that an AI CEO would somehow preserve human jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you are using though, as though you are annoyed and simply expect sources to always be included with claims. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals.
Someone drops very specific percentages about diagnostic accuracy....numbers that, if true, have serious implications for patient outcomes, and your concern is that I did not ask nicely enough for a source? I could not think of a more HN typical response... I did not even call the claim false, even if it almost deserve it...I said, essentially ...let's see the references so we can treat this as fact rather than opini…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone drops very specific percentages about diagnostic accuracy....numbers that, if true, have serious implications for patient outcomes, and your concern is that I did not ask nicely enough for a source? I could not think of a more HN typical response... I did not even call the claim false, even if it almost deserve it...I said, essentially ...let's see the references so we can treat this as fact rather than opini…
[flagged]
You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance.
The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.