4 ms·
The systems tested were from papers that claimed to be more accurate than radiologists. 1. Presumably we are most interested in the 6% that are more accurate.
by lend000 5y ago
The systems tested were from papers that claimed to be more accurate than radiologists.
1. Presumably we are most interested in the 6% that are more accurate.
2. The more interesting part, although not entirely surprising, is that 94% of research is overstated, at best.
- MattGaiser 5y agoA lot of the systems seem to be trained on very few images. I work for a ML commercialization company. People have brought us models trained on 10 tumors.
- malcolmgreaves 5y ago> 1. Presumably we are most interested in the 6% that are more accurate. Why? At 94% failure, this 6% sounds like lucky guessing by a computer.
- da_chicken 5y agoTitle isn't remotely clear here. "94% of 36 AI systems evaluated were less accurate" could mean the 36 systems were less accurate in 94% of cases, or it could mean that 34 of the 36 systems were less accurate. From the actual article's abstract, here is what was meant: > Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. I wonder if the HN title was written by one of these AI systems.
- cratermoon 5y agoNo, I shortened the title because HN wouldn't allow the full one. I thought it would be pretty obvious that 94% of 36 is 34 (rounded).
- rightbyte 5y agoI don't know how much guessing is involved in making a diagnosis but some AIs could have been lucky. It would be hard for the doctor to win all 'games' even if better.