4 ms·

Is there an argument to be made that decreasing the workload on radiologists could improve their results in more difficult cases? I don't think it's a stretch t

Is there an argument to be made that decreasing the workload on radiologists could improve their results in more difficult cases? I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that less tired/busy doctors would be able to perform their job more effectively. There's also the fact that radiologists get paid a pretty decent salary. If I could devise a system that can do a highly paid worker's job faster, cheaper, and at a similar level of effectiveness, why wouldn't I? It also opens up that skilled worker's schedule and allows them to tackle more difficult to interpret scans.

908B64B197 5y ago
> I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that less tired/busy doctors would be able to perform their job more effectively. You are suggesting something that's against the groupthink for that profession. You can't graduate from an MD program while holding these thoughts. I'm being 100% serious here.
- danachow 5y ago
  > You can't graduate from an MD program while holding these thoughts. By your logic I must not exist then. Like who do you think is labeling your training images? Look at the authors of pretty much all cited studies in that meta-analysis. Sure see a lot of MD and MD-PhD there.
tedivm 5y ago
That argument is exactly the one made by my former company, Rad AI. Rather than focusing on trying to "solve" radiology they're focused on augmenting radiologists. Their main goal is to reduce the amount of time a radiologist spends on each report while increasing accuracy and reducing errors. The point I'm making is that focusing on mammograms is not the way to do that. It's already a very optimized specialty. If AI researchers worked more closely with practicing radiologists (not academic ones) I imagine there's all sorts of areas where existing technology today can improve things.
- antasvara 5y ago
  I think my point is that mammograms are a (relatively) easy to solve problem using today's technology. Why wouldn't it be worthwhile to solve that problem such that it has very limited human involvement? It's the reason professional baseball is experimenting with electronic strike detection, despite the fact that umpires are very accurate (~94%) calling pitches. I get that there are useful applications of AI that could augment a radiologist. I'm simply pointing out that if one could completely remove a radiologist from the equation, that could be a super helpful tool. I suppose my view is that removing/limiting the human element in routine inspections is a very worthwhile goal. There's also the side benefit of increasing trust for these technologies. I think a lot of people are rightfully scared of AI technologies; showing that they can be as effective as a radiologist for routine screenings would be very beneficial.
- cameronh90 5y ago
  "If AI researchers worked more closely with practicing radiologists (not academic ones) I imagine there's all sorts of areas where existing technology today can improve things." That's almost certainly true, and surely there must be people in the medical industry already working on this. In hospitals, there are internal organisations that vaguely attempt to link up technology workers with practicing doctors to improve medicine using technology. One of my most competent former developer colleagues retrained as a doctor and worked in medical digitisation, as well as being a practicing doctor. However: * Often coming at a problem from another angle and ignoring existing professionals can be useful too. Existing workers are very often stuck in their ways and unwilling to accept the way they look at a problem may not be the best. I have heard from many in medicine, that doctors are extremely distrustful and hesitant towards technology, as well as fiercely protective of their jobs. * The medical industry is internally highly dysfunctional and trying to work with practicing doctors can be extremely politically difficult. The hospital bureaucracy often actively tries to prevent practicing doctors from working directly with technologists, preferring instead to silo them and direct all communication via senior management - who are often neither technology nor medical experts. Consequently it seems more likely that major changes will come from outside. * AI has occasionally (rarely?) shown great success in solving problems without needing domain experts. See AlphaGo.
didntknowya 5y ago
problem is unless this AI is 100% perfect it will not provide any value to a radiologist. it is their reputation on the line with each interpretation. to have them read an AI's diagnosis before having to assess a mammogram themselves to confirm the AI's finding is adding an unnecessary step to their workflow.

908B64B197 5y ago

> I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that less tired/busy doctors would be able to perform their job more effectively. You are suggesting something that's against the groupthink for that profession. You can't graduate from an MD program while holding these thoughts. I'm being 100% serious here.

danachow 5y ago
> You can't graduate from an MD program while holding these thoughts. By your logic I must not exist then. Like who do you think is labeling your training images? Look at the authors of pretty much all cited studies in that meta-analysis. Sure see a lot of MD and MD-PhD there.

tedivm 5y ago

That argument is exactly the one made by my former company, Rad AI. Rather than focusing on trying to "solve" radiology they're focused on augmenting radiologists. Their main goal is to reduce the amount of time a radiologist spends on each report while increasing accuracy and reducing errors. The point I'm making is that focusing on mammograms is not the way to do that. It's already a very optimized specialty. If AI researchers worked more closely with practicing radiologists (not academic ones) I imagine there's all sorts of areas where existing technology today can improve things.

antasvara 5y ago
I think my point is that mammograms are a (relatively) easy to solve problem using today's technology. Why wouldn't it be worthwhile to solve that problem such that it has very limited human involvement? It's the reason professional baseball is experimenting with electronic strike detection, despite the fact that umpires are very accurate (~94%) calling pitches. I get that there are useful applications of AI that could augment a radiologist. I'm simply pointing out that if one could completely remove a radiologist from the equation, that could be a super helpful tool. I suppose my view is that removing/limiting the human element in routine inspections is a very worthwhile goal. There's also the side benefit of increasing trust for these technologies. I think a lot of people are rightfully scared of AI technologies; showing that they can be as effective as a radiologist for routine screenings would be very beneficial.
cameronh90 5y ago
"If AI researchers worked more closely with practicing radiologists (not academic ones) I imagine there's all sorts of areas where existing technology today can improve things." That's almost certainly true, and surely there must be people in the medical industry already working on this. In hospitals, there are internal organisations that vaguely attempt to link up technology workers with practicing doctors to improve medicine using technology. One of my most competent former developer colleagues retrained as a doctor and worked in medical digitisation, as well as being a practicing doctor. However: * Often coming at a problem from another angle and ignoring existing professionals can be useful too. Existing workers are very often stuck in their ways and unwilling to accept the way they look at a problem may not be the best. I have heard from many in medicine, that doctors are extremely distrustful and hesitant towards technology, as well as fiercely protective of their jobs. * The medical industry is internally highly dysfunctional and trying to work with practicing doctors can be extremely politically difficult. The hospital bureaucracy often actively tries to prevent practicing doctors from working directly with technologists, preferring instead to silo them and direct all communication via senior management - who are often neither technology nor medical experts. Consequently it seems more likely that major changes will come from outside. * AI has occasionally (rarely?) shown great success in solving problems without needing domain experts. See AlphaGo.

didntknowya 5y ago

problem is unless this AI is 100% perfect it will not provide any value to a radiologist. it is their reputation on the line with each interpretation. to have them read an AI's diagnosis before having to assess a mammogram themselves to confirm the AI's finding is adding an unnecessary step to their workflow.