3 ms·
I have not stated "all screening is bad". Broad-based population screenings as the parent comment suggests, in my opinion, are. I'm yet to see any clinically-
by rahulnair23 6y ago
I have not stated "all screening is bad".
Broad-based population screenings as the parent comment suggests, in my opinion, are.
I'm yet to see any clinically-valid distinguishing aspects that would suggest AI would add value to screening. Curious to hear evidence that drives your optimism of human+AI.
Just to state, the NELSON study [1] focuses on high-risk segments. Their paper also recommends a "personalized risk-based approach" to screening. This seems reasonable.
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1911793 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1911793
- dontreact 6y agoThe general thread here is about AI helping with a more proactive approach to medicine. Screening for high risk populations certainly falls under that. You certainly said that screening leads to over diagnosis. I think for screening, the best results are probably the upcoming prospective study from Kheiron. https://www.kheironmed.com/news/press-release-new-results-show-miatm-kheirons-breast-screening-ai-could-help-solve-the-breast-cancer-screening-workforce-crisis-and-covid-backlog https://www.kheironmed.com/news/press-release-new-results-sh...
- dontreact 6y agoI suspect, btw, that the Google model in this paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1799-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1799-6 will show stronger performance. But Kheiron appears to be ahead as far as proving the value of the tool since they have actually validated prospectively.