Not speaking for coolwulf obviously but I can perhaps shed some light. Screening breast mammo has an occurrence rate problme. Something like less than 10 in 1

Not speaking for coolwulf obviously but I can perhaps shed some light. Screening breast mammo has an occurrence rate problme. Something like less than 10 in 1000 studies will require further review; this means in practice as a radiologist you look at a lot of negative films before seeing a TP. It also means a typical read is done fast. Seconds-to-small minutes. This results in a couple of things. Reader variability based on experience/throughput, and false negatives. There were some double reader studies that caught something like 15% (going from memory here) of FN - but nobody can affort to have two radiologists read everything. So the profession is already conceptually used to the idea of using an algorithm as a "second read" and reconsidering. Typically this won't "overturn" anything here but rather say 'hey have another look', but the decision to proceed or not is still the clinicians. Having a positive from the algorithm makes them review carefully, but you have to watch the FP rate here or nobody would get anything else done. I have heard of health systems using algorithms as a first pass too (i.e. radiologist only see films that have had a postive in a tuned-to-be-senstive version), but that has it's own set of issues.