Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ch4m3le0n t1_jb4b7sy wrote

Most of this tech is currently not as good as a real radiologist. Detecting cancers is a lot harder than it looks, and is often not just based on the imaging, but a raft of other factors.

15

epigenie_986 t1_jb4kdux wrote

We might need AI to do a pass, along with a radiologist. I found a lump, hand it imaged and dismissed by a radiologist. A different radiologist takes a look, decides to biopsy, it’s found to be cancer. If a computer can take a look and save time of two radiologists looking, I’m game. People make mistakes. It is what it is.

16

ch4m3le0n t1_jb92ihp wrote

That's fine, and that happens today - in fact second opinions are a really important part of the process (both for you and the radiologists), but the AI is going to be of low value to you there, since it's accuracy is no better.

There is some value in having the AI sanity check the radiologist, but if they differ you are going to need two radiologists anyway.

I'm sorry to hear about your diagnosis, however, and I wish you a healthy future.

1

ChronWeasely t1_jb4onro wrote

From the article it said this AI is at least as effective as radiologists, and far faster.

4

ch4m3le0n t1_jb92khv wrote

I run a company in the medical imaging space. It's not as effective, yet. The article is wrong.

1