AI can find cancer pathologists miss
Technology
53
Beiträge
28
Kommentatoren
38
Aufrufe
-
this is bullshit.
the study was performed by Navinci Diagnostics, which has a vested interest in the use of technological diagnostic tools like AI.
the only way to truly identify cancer is through physical examination and tests. instead of wasting resources on AI we should improve early detection through improved efficiency of tests, allowing patients to regularly test more often and cheaper.
Won't this sort of technology help people get regular tests more often?
-
The paper hasn't been updated, the cleerly AI is part of the original paper.
The updated model data is presented in a preliminary form in the lecture, papers still pending.
What does Dave Feldman have to do with the study and how did he get these preliminary results?
-
What does Dave Feldman have to do with the study and how did he get these preliminary results?
he funded the study, organized it, sourced the volunteers, etc.
-
Won't this sort of technology help people get regular tests more often?
it won't because it's an illusion of a test with unverifiable results.
Imagine this, you want to know if you have cancer. you can get results from a biopsy, blood tests, and an MRI. all results are validated by specialist review. it will take 3 months to collect and validate the results. OR, you can run all your tests above and have results in 24 hours but they aren't validated by a specialist.
so the question is, why does it take 3 months and how can we make it shorter without decreasing quality, validity, or consistency?
AI is not the answer.
-
he funded the study, organized it, sourced the volunteers, etc.
i see, the guy who is not a doctor but sells subscription services as “diet doctor” is continuing to fund the study until the results support his business.
-
i see, the guy who is not a doctor but sells subscription services as “diet doctor” is continuing to fund the study until the results support his business.
DietDoctor is a group of doctors focused on metabolic health, it does not have a relationship with Feldman. https://www.dietdoctor.com/about/team-diet-doctor
David Feldman has never called himself a doctor
Yes, people with agendas fund science, the results speak for themselves, that is the purpose of science - publish reproducible results for others to replicate.
-
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36236133
What's the false positive rate? You can dial up the sensitivity of any test if you don't mind 10,000 people having unnecessary cancer surgery for every real case that's detected.
-
From the peer-reviewed paper: "This study examined if artificial intelligence (AI) could detect these
morphological clues in benign biopsies from men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels
to predict subsequent diagnosis of clinically significant PCa within 30 months".. so yes, these were men who all had high cancer risk.And the risk of prostate cancer from age 60 on is quite high and increases with age, even if you're not in a high risk group (other than age).
-
This is what machine learning is supposed to be. Specialized models that solve a specific problem. Refreshing to read about some real AI research
Yeah, there are some useful applications for ML. Less so for LLMs.
-
Different kind of ai. This is the very useful analytical kind.
Yep. My thesis is that a larger share of AI investment and energy should be directed toward more promising areas.
