3 ms·
I'll take that bet against you. > I am guessing that there's nothing inherent in this problem that is much more difficult than other image recognition problems
by greazy 5y ago
I'll take that bet against you.
> I am guessing that there's nothing inherent in this problem that is much more difficult than other image recognition problems.
This is factually wrong. You're assumption I guess is that its a data issue: if we can just get more data we'd solve this issue.
The reality is that these diseases are complex, their presentation is complex, and compounded by different technology. There's also the issue of data complexity, x-rays contain less information compared to a picture of your dog.
We need better algos, not more data.
- colinmhayes 5y agoHuman faces are complex too. Yet computer vision has no trouble recognizing you out of the billions that exist.
- greazy 5y agoYou've misunderstood my point I think. How a disease presents is different issue than the complexity of faces. A photo of a face has more information encoded than an x-ray image. This lack of information is part of the problem that I think more data doesn't solve and why humans are able to identify cancer. We have better image recognition 'software'. And that's my point, better algos, not more data
- inshadows 5y agoWhat sort of better algos?