3 ms·
I was a RSNA this year (major Radiology conference and trade show) and one of the presenters made the claim that their model was generalized because it works on
by fluidcruft 3y ago
I was a RSNA this year (major Radiology conference and trade show) and one of the presenters made the claim that their model was generalized because it works on different body parts. My intuition was they were claiming they trained it on one body parts and it subsequently worked on different body parts (which could be convincing). So at first this seemed fine. But in reality they had trained the same model on all of those body parts. That really go me to thinking about the old myth that we only use 10% of our brains. Anyway I think capacity would be when the model can no longer learn.
But anyway it made me wonder if there's a way to measure "what x% of a model is actually used" similar to the myths about human brains.
- cyanydeez 3y ago"junk" DNA is a similarly dark data
- jakobnissen 3y agoAn often repeated claim, but untrue. We have a pretty good understanding of large parts of junk DNA, how it got there and what it is, and know that most of it really is junk. That being said, only around 2% of the human genome is coding, with perhaps another one or two percent having known no coding function. And estimates of functional DNA is somewhere around 8% of the genome. So, most functional DNA is still unknown.
- cicce19 3y agoI was also at RSNA. What was the model intended to do in this example?
- fluidcruft 3y agoIIRC it was about emerging MRI reconstructions for MSK in one of the educational sessions. It was more the ambiguous way the claim was stated about trasferrable knowledge initially that got me thinking about the "10% of brain" thing rather than anything specifically presented.