4 ms·
When there is a review process in place, it is usually followed. Mistakes should be expected in the tiniest commits and there should be processes that catch the
by mlajtos 3y ago
When there is a review process in place, it is usually followed. Mistakes should be expected in the tiniest commits and there should be processes that catch them. As you suggested, medical community does this ad-hoc and only for interesting/unsure cases and this is the result:
> The researchers estimate that 7.4 million misdiagnosis errors are made every year, 2.6 million people receive a harm that could have been prevented, and another 370,000 are permanently disabled or die because of the misdiagnosis.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/health/hospital-misdiagnoses-study/ https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/health/hospital-misdiagno...
- viraptor 3y agoWhile that's true, we have to keep in mind: 1. We don't know yet what the misdiagnosis rate would be with a review. (There are reasons it could go up) 2. At least in the area I'm familiar with, on many days there just wouldn't be enough staff to do it - people are already sometimes waiting for hours. 3. Issues raised in the article.
- mlajtos 3y agoWhy do you think that the ratio of misdiagnosis would go up if there was a dialogue or a review process? 2. and 3. are interlinked. In my mind, medicine is the number one application for ML. Every doctor should have the best AI at their finger tips. One person cannot digest all the research that is being done; computer can. The benchmarks will go up.
- viraptor 3y agoPotential issues from reviews: First person thinks it's X, second person doesn't, first person changes mind but it really was X. First person thinks it's X, second person finds potential issue Y which becomes more important, but X was actually the biggest issue.