5 ms·
The full snippet editorialized by the post is > Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and
by striking 5y ago
The full snippet editorialized by the post is
> 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.
- cratermoon 5y agoBlame the character limit on HN titles. How would you would have written it to fit in the limit?
- OJFord 5y agoNot GP, but I'd prefer '34' over '94%'. (Especially since the latter was parenthesised - I'd remove the parenthetical before anything else.) (Or just 94%, and then have people say 'but N= only 36!'.) Percentages for small numbers, in particular below 100, are just annoying and often designed to mislead. (Though I'm not suggesting that here, it's standard in medicine if not other fields.)
- yawnxyz 5y agoMy crack at this (only for fun! Your title is great): "Only 1 of 36 AI systems was more accurate than a single radiologist"
- striking 5y agoThe guidelines say you should use the title as-is, but my attempt might put the focus on the "and 100% were worse than 2 radiologists" part, to mitigate exactly the problem of "well let's use the 6% that actually work" comments that exist without the context.