3 ms·
way cheaper than 90%, and way faster than 99%. Radiologists are crazy expensive, at least 50$ per scan. Let's say you use a 1000$ GPU (which you don't need to a
by make3 5y ago
way cheaper than 90%, and way faster than 99%. Radiologists are crazy expensive, at least 50$ per scan. Let's say you use a 1000$ GPU (which you don't need to as these models are usually tiny in practice because of the limited size of medical datasets and because you're not doing hundreds of scans per second.. a CPU is very likely fine). Then.. just 20 scans in you make your money. Let's say the license cost is 5$ per scan. Still make your money very fast.
- cratermoon 5y ago> Still make your money very fast. Not much consolation for the families of the dead patients that your software misdiagnosed.
- anchpop 5y agoI doubt your reasoning will be much consolation to the families of people who didn't get a scan because it cost $50 rather than $5
- detaro 5y agonote that GP assumed still charging $50 for some nice profit.
- cratermoon 5y agoAnd didn't take into account the additional costs and risks of unnecessary treatments or surgery if the AI returns a false positive.
- nradov 5y agoUS medical insurers are required to fully cover mammography screening at no cost to the patient. https://www.hrsa.gov/womens-guidelines/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/womens-guidelines/index.html
- colinmhayes 5y agoMany americans don't have insurance.