3 ms·
This was not tested in the study.
by rscho 2y ago
This was not tested in the study.
- sigmoid10 2y agoIt was. Look at the dataset. This is stuff that takes tons of experience to work with and it also explains why GPT was so much better than the med student. Although my original N=1 criticism here still applies.
- rscho 2y agoWe're not speaking of the same thing when we say 'know-how', then. No, it was not tested.
- sigmoid10 2y agoIf you're referring to physical examinations (and I don't know what else you could be talking about since you didn't specify it), then the point still stands. You could theoretically make an argument that the sensation of performing the examination yourself vs. just hearing a first-hand account could make a difference, and I would agree. But in a clinical setting you won't have the expert chief physician re-do the physical either, so the argument is kind of pointless.
- rscho 2y ago>performing the examination yourself vs. just hearing a first-hand account could make a difference That makes a world of difference. It's actually where most of a doc's performance resides. > in a clinical setting you won't have the expert chief physician re-do the physical either And you don't need it. Lots of thousands of fellows or even some advanced resident are already at the approriate level of experience. Actually, fellows are often superior because they've got a superior volume of practice.
- sigmoid10 2y ago>That makes a world of difference Got any source on that? In the paper they certainly don't assume that. >Lots of thousands of fellows or even some advanced resident Same argument as before. We simply don't have enough of those in western medical care due to aging societies.
- jstummbillig 2y agoShare what you mean?