>What percentage of the diagnostic radiologists won't bother to even review the AI output? 3%, 10%, 30%? It'll increase as the AI improves. In my opinion, an A

>What percentage of the diagnostic radiologists won't bother to even review the AI output? 3%, 10%, 30%? It'll increase as the AI improves. In my opinion, an AI system like this (diagnostics) shouldn't even be implemented until it is statistically the case that "won't bother to even review the AI output"-level poor performance on the part of radiologists produces better outcomes than a traditional non-AI system. Then we don't have to worry about what happens when the radiologist isn't good enough to review their work product: the answer is that the medical care is at least better than it would have otherwise been. Deploying a system like that would improve medical outcomes with minimal disruptions. That said, I think we'll reach that point (statistically provable that an AI system is making better diagnoses than the average radiologist) sooner than most people probably think, maybe a couple of years and then [regulatory approval] years until it's actually used. That doesn't mean radiologists shouldn't exist, though. A radiologist fits into a much larger organisational framework - they file paperwork, they hold responsibility, they are ostensibly available to call and ask about a specific quirk, etc. Even with a 100% perfect AI at the task of "what disease, if any, is indicated by this image?", that still doesn't automate a radiologist's job. A lot of other stuff needs to happen first.