3 ms·

What if human doctors double check results for false positives? They will help prevent unnecessary procedures. The algorithms would still allow scans to be rea

What if human doctors double check results for false positives? They will help prevent unnecessary procedures. The algorithms would still allow scans to be read more efficiently since negative results for low-risk patients can be mostly automated away.

chongli 7y ago
If a human radiologist is double-checking all of the results (for both false positives and false negatives) then it's not so much a disruptive technology, it's another tool in the radiologist's tool belt at that point.
- jlisam13 7y ago
  how about less radiologists required to double check? I would consider that as disruptive.
- jrumbut 7y ago
  You say that like it's a bad thing! I don't think taking the human all the way out of the loop is a great idea given the state of models we've seen to date (in medicine, anyway). I think a better direction would be looking at how to make these systems more complementary with human operators, surfacing interesting features or distant connections humans tend to miss and guarding against the big errors anyone might make staring at grayscale images on the night shift.
- nopinsight 7y ago
  As in my last sentence, even just mostly automating the cases with negative results for low-risk patients would improve throughout and efficiency quite a bit. Yes, I agree it should be another, yet increasingly important tool for a while. Perhaps not until a near-AGI is invented that machines can completely automate away doctor jobs.
- m_ke 7y ago
  Radiologists get second opinions all the time. I've seen radiology projects where the radiologists gave a different reading almost 40% of the time. (example of this: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2018171557 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2018171557). In some cases they also spend a lot of time annotating and measuring small areas of the images and having a model generate suggestions for them would save a ton of time.

chongli 7y ago

If a human radiologist is double-checking all of the results (for both false positives and false negatives) then it's not so much a disruptive technology, it's another tool in the radiologist's tool belt at that point.

jlisam13 7y ago
how about less radiologists required to double check? I would consider that as disruptive.
jrumbut 7y ago
You say that like it's a bad thing! I don't think taking the human all the way out of the loop is a great idea given the state of models we've seen to date (in medicine, anyway). I think a better direction would be looking at how to make these systems more complementary with human operators, surfacing interesting features or distant connections humans tend to miss and guarding against the big errors anyone might make staring at grayscale images on the night shift.
nopinsight 7y ago
As in my last sentence, even just mostly automating the cases with negative results for low-risk patients would improve throughout and efficiency quite a bit. Yes, I agree it should be another, yet increasingly important tool for a while. Perhaps not until a near-AGI is invented that machines can completely automate away doctor jobs.
m_ke 7y ago
Radiologists get second opinions all the time. I've seen radiology projects where the radiologists gave a different reading almost 40% of the time. (example of this: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2018171557 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2018171557). In some cases they also spend a lot of time annotating and measuring small areas of the images and having a model generate suggestions for them would save a ton of time.