5 ms·

You think the only real reason the public don't get to use this tool is because of greed? Like, that's the only REAL reason? Not the technological or ethical i

You think the only real reason the public don't get to use this tool is because of greed? Like, that's the only REAL reason? Not the technological or ethical implications? The dangers in providing people with no real concept of how any of this works the means to evaluate themselves?

K0balt 2y ago
Yeah, we should also limit access to medical books too. With a copy of the MERK manual, what’s to stop me from diagnosing my own diseases or even setting up shop at the mall as a medical “counselor” ? The infantilization of the public in the name of “safety” is offensive and ridiculous. In many countries, you can get the vast majority of medicines at the pharmacy without a prescription. Amazingly, people still pay doctors and don’t just take random medications without consulting medical professionals. It’s only “necessary” to limit access to medical tools in countries that have perverted the incentive structure of healthcare to the point where, out of desperation, people will try nearly anything to deal with health issues that they desperately need care for but cannot afford. In countries where healthcare costs are not punitive and are in alignment with the economy, people opt for sane solutions and quality advice because they want to get well and don’t want to harm themselves accidentally. If developing nations with arguably inferior education systems can responsibly live with open access to medical treatment resources like diagnostic imaging and pharmaceuticals, maybe we should be asking ourselves what is it, exactly, that is perverting the incentives so badly that having ungated access to these lifesaving resources would be dangerous?
- taneq 2y ago
  Could there be, perhaps, a middle ground between “backyard chop shops powered by YouTube tutorials and Reddit posts” and the U.S.’ current regulatory-and-commercial-capture exploitation?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - K0balt 2y ago
    I honestly don’t think we need more amateurs performing healthcare services for fun and profit, but I also think that barriers to self-care should be nearly nonexistent while encouraging an abundance of caution. Not sure how to best accommodate those somewhat disparate goals.
- rscho 2y ago
  Honestly, that's a short-sighted interpretation. Would you get treated by someone who's fresh out of school? If not, why? They're the ones with the most up to date and extensive knowledge. Today, medicine is still mostly know-how acquired through practical training, not books. A good doc is mostly experience, with a few bits of real science inside.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Someone fresh out of medical school is a resident so they're under direct supervision for 3-7 years. And unless you live in an area with an abundance of hospitals, there's a large change your local hospital is a teaching hospital staffed largely by residents and the attendings that supervise them. You can request non-resident care only but it's a request and is not guaranteed. The TLDR is that most people when interacting with anything other than their GP family doctor, are probably interacting with someone "fresh out of school."
    - rscho 2y ago
      So, why do residents need so much supervision? Since they have the most recent, and also usually most extensive knowledge. Granted, specialized knowledge is sometimes acquired during residency. Still, it's mostly taught by attendings instead of being read from books. Medicine is a know-how profession.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        > Since they have the most recent, and also usually most extensive knowledge. They've crammed it, yes. They need some extra time learn how to make use of that knowledge in day-to-day practice.
      - pc86 2y ago
        You don't learn how to be a radiologist, or an orthopedic surgeon, or an OB-GYN, or any other specialty, in med school. You can't learn surgery from a book. Maybe there are large parts of family or internal medicine you can learn from a book but those residencies are already several years shorter than most surgical specialties. You wouldn't drop a fresh college CS grad by themselves in a group a developers and expect them to just figure it out. Just like medical school doesn't really teach you how to be a doctor, a CS degree doesn't really teach you how to code. They're both much more academic than the day-to-day of the job you're getting that degree for. They'd still get mentorship from colleagues, supervisors, and others. The only difference is medicine has the ACGME and all the government regulations to make it much more structured than what you need for most everything else.
- Calavar 2y ago
  > If developing nations with arguably inferior education systems can responsibly live with open access to medical treatment resources like diagnostic imaging and pharmaceuticals, Well, the conditional in this if statement doesn't hold. Yes, pharmaceuticals are open access in much of the developing world, but it has not happened responsibly. For example, Carbapenem-resistant bacteria are 20 times as common in India as they are in the U.S [1] I really don't like this characterization of medical resource stewardship as "infantilization" because it implies some sort of elitism amongst doctors, when it's exactly the opposite. It's a system of checks and balances that limits the power afforded to any one person, no matter how smart they think they are. In a US hospital setting, doctors do not have 100% control over antibiotics. An antibiotic stewardship pharmacist or infectious disease specialist will deny and/or cancel antibiotics left and right, even if the prescribing doctor is chief of their department or the CMO. [1] https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/may-june-2022/Pages/paradox-antimicrobial-resistance-india.aspx https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/may-june-20...
- BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
  > The infantilization of the public in the name of “safety” is offensive and ridiculous. It comes from dealing with the public. > In many countries, you can get the vast majority of medicines at the pharmacy without a prescription. Amazingly, people still pay doctors and don’t just take random medications without consulting medical professionals. I see people on this site of allegedly smart people recommending taking random medications ALL THE TIME. Not only without consulting medical professionals, but _in spite of medical professional's advice_, because they think they _know better_. Let's roll out the unbelievably dumb idea of selling self-diagnosis AI on radiology scans in the countries you’re referring to and ask them how it works out. If you want the freedom to shoot from the hip on your healthcare, you've got the freedom to move to Tijuana. We're not going to subject our medical professionals to deal with an onslaught of confidently wrong individuals who are armed with their $40 AI results from an overhyped startup. Those startups can make their case to the providers directly and have their tools vetted.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Doctors give out wrong and bad advice all the time. Doctors in general make mistakes all the time to the point that there’s some alarming statistic about how preventable medical errors is a scary high percentage of deaths. People should absolutely question their doctors and get more opinions, and in a world where my last 10 minute doctor visit would have cost $650 without insurance, for a NP, I don’t blame them for trying to self diagnose.
    - BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
      You are proving my point talking about the percentage of deaths caused by medical errors. If you had 100,000 people receive medical care, 10 die, and 5 of them are due to medical errors, then sure, you could spin that as "50% of deaths were caused by medical errors". Never mind the context, never mind the fact that we are actually able to identify the errors in the first place! So again, if you want to ignore the safeguards that we've built for good reason - take your business to Tijuana.
    - rscho 2y ago
mhuffman 2y ago
Not to speak of the "greed" on this particular item but in Europe you can buy real time glucose monitors, portable ecg, and low calorie meal replacements over the counter. In the US, all of these require a doctor's prescription. It wouldn't take a leap in logic to think that was greed or pressure from the AMA lobby (one of the most funded lobbies in the US, btw).
- rscho 2y ago
  > in Europe you can buy real time glucose monitors, portable ecg, and low calorie meal replacements over the counter. True! And, aside from people with chronic conditions like diabetics, who are forced to know how their glucose levels work, nobody uses those. So it certainly does change the cost, but I don't think it would be any more useful in the US.
  - mzmoen 2y ago
    That’s not true at all? There are companies like Levels who sell CGMs to non-diabetics to try and optimize their health.
    - rscho 2y ago
      In my experience, it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence. At least, I personally know no one doing that. YMMV, I guess. Also, it seems to me like a very bad idea to do that.
      - delichon 2y ago
        As a type 2 diabetic I used a couple of different glucose monitors and got a lot of benefit from them. I gave one to a friend who I thought had diabetic symptoms. First I tried to get him to go to a doctor but he wouldn't. But he tried the CGM and found numbers well into the diabetic range. Then he immediately changed his diet and started treatment. Not sure but I may have committed a crime. What was the potential harm that was greater than the reward?
phkahler 2y ago
>> Like, that's the only REAL reason? Not the technological or ethical implications? The dangers in providing people with no real concept of how any of this works the means to evaluate themselves? On the surface those all sound like additional reasons not to make it available. But they are also great rationalizations for those who want to maintain a monopoly on analysis. Personally I found all the comparisons to other AI performance bothersome. None of those were specifically trained on diagnostics AFAICT. Comparison against human experts would seem to be the appropriate way to test it. And not people just out of training taking their first test, I assume experts do better over time though I might be wrong on that.
- jarrelscy 2y ago
  Developer here - its a good point that most of the models were not specifically trained on diagnostic imaging, with the exception of Llava-Med. We would love to compare against other models trained on diagnostic imaging if anyone can grant us access! Comparison against human experts is the gold standard but information on human performance in the FRCR 2B Rapids examination is hard to come by - we've provided a reference (1) which shows comparable (at least numerically) performance of human radiologists. To your point around people just out of training (keeping in mind that training for the FRCR takes 5 years, while doing practicing medicine in a real clinical setting) taking their first test - the reference shows that after passing the FRCR 2B Rapids the first time, their performance actually declines (at least in the first year), so I'm not sure if experts would do better over time. 1. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/379/bmj-2022-072826.full.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/379/bmj-2022-072826.full.pdf
  - rscho 2y ago
    Someone downvoted the author !? This site never ceases to amaze.

K0balt 2y ago

Yeah, we should also limit access to medical books too. With a copy of the MERK manual, what’s to stop me from diagnosing my own diseases or even setting up shop at the mall as a medical “counselor” ? The infantilization of the public in the name of “safety” is offensive and ridiculous. In many countries, you can get the vast majority of medicines at the pharmacy without a prescription. Amazingly, people still pay doctors and don’t just take random medications without consulting medical professionals. It’s only “necessary” to limit access to medical tools in countries that have perverted the incentive structure of healthcare to the point where, out of desperation, people will try nearly anything to deal with health issues that they desperately need care for but cannot afford. In countries where healthcare costs are not punitive and are in alignment with the economy, people opt for sane solutions and quality advice because they want to get well and don’t want to harm themselves accidentally. If developing nations with arguably inferior education systems can responsibly live with open access to medical treatment resources like diagnostic imaging and pharmaceuticals, maybe we should be asking ourselves what is it, exactly, that is perverting the incentives so badly that having ungated access to these lifesaving resources would be dangerous?

taneq 2y ago
Could there be, perhaps, a middle ground between “backyard chop shops powered by YouTube tutorials and Reddit posts” and the U.S.’ current regulatory-and-commercial-capture exploitation?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- K0balt 2y ago
  I honestly don’t think we need more amateurs performing healthcare services for fun and profit, but I also think that barriers to self-care should be nearly nonexistent while encouraging an abundance of caution. Not sure how to best accommodate those somewhat disparate goals.
rscho 2y ago
Honestly, that's a short-sighted interpretation. Would you get treated by someone who's fresh out of school? If not, why? They're the ones with the most up to date and extensive knowledge. Today, medicine is still mostly know-how acquired through practical training, not books. A good doc is mostly experience, with a few bits of real science inside.
- pc86 2y ago
  Someone fresh out of medical school is a resident so they're under direct supervision for 3-7 years. And unless you live in an area with an abundance of hospitals, there's a large change your local hospital is a teaching hospital staffed largely by residents and the attendings that supervise them. You can request non-resident care only but it's a request and is not guaranteed. The TLDR is that most people when interacting with anything other than their GP family doctor, are probably interacting with someone "fresh out of school."
  - rscho 2y ago
    So, why do residents need so much supervision? Since they have the most recent, and also usually most extensive knowledge. Granted, specialized knowledge is sometimes acquired during residency. Still, it's mostly taught by attendings instead of being read from books. Medicine is a know-how profession.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > Since they have the most recent, and also usually most extensive knowledge. They've crammed it, yes. They need some extra time learn how to make use of that knowledge in day-to-day practice.
    - pc86 2y ago
      You don't learn how to be a radiologist, or an orthopedic surgeon, or an OB-GYN, or any other specialty, in med school. You can't learn surgery from a book. Maybe there are large parts of family or internal medicine you can learn from a book but those residencies are already several years shorter than most surgical specialties. You wouldn't drop a fresh college CS grad by themselves in a group a developers and expect them to just figure it out. Just like medical school doesn't really teach you how to be a doctor, a CS degree doesn't really teach you how to code. They're both much more academic than the day-to-day of the job you're getting that degree for. They'd still get mentorship from colleagues, supervisors, and others. The only difference is medicine has the ACGME and all the government regulations to make it much more structured than what you need for most everything else.
Calavar 2y ago
> If developing nations with arguably inferior education systems can responsibly live with open access to medical treatment resources like diagnostic imaging and pharmaceuticals, Well, the conditional in this if statement doesn't hold. Yes, pharmaceuticals are open access in much of the developing world, but it has not happened responsibly. For example, Carbapenem-resistant bacteria are 20 times as common in India as they are in the U.S [1] I really don't like this characterization of medical resource stewardship as "infantilization" because it implies some sort of elitism amongst doctors, when it's exactly the opposite. It's a system of checks and balances that limits the power afforded to any one person, no matter how smart they think they are. In a US hospital setting, doctors do not have 100% control over antibiotics. An antibiotic stewardship pharmacist or infectious disease specialist will deny and/or cancel antibiotics left and right, even if the prescribing doctor is chief of their department or the CMO. [1] https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/may-june-2022/Pages/paradox-antimicrobial-resistance-india.aspx https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/may-june-20...
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
> The infantilization of the public in the name of “safety” is offensive and ridiculous. It comes from dealing with the public. > In many countries, you can get the vast majority of medicines at the pharmacy without a prescription. Amazingly, people still pay doctors and don’t just take random medications without consulting medical professionals. I see people on this site of allegedly smart people recommending taking random medications ALL THE TIME. Not only without consulting medical professionals, but _in spite of medical professional's advice_, because they think they _know better_. Let's roll out the unbelievably dumb idea of selling self-diagnosis AI on radiology scans in the countries you’re referring to and ask them how it works out. If you want the freedom to shoot from the hip on your healthcare, you've got the freedom to move to Tijuana. We're not going to subject our medical professionals to deal with an onslaught of confidently wrong individuals who are armed with their $40 AI results from an overhyped startup. Those startups can make their case to the providers directly and have their tools vetted.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Doctors give out wrong and bad advice all the time. Doctors in general make mistakes all the time to the point that there’s some alarming statistic about how preventable medical errors is a scary high percentage of deaths. People should absolutely question their doctors and get more opinions, and in a world where my last 10 minute doctor visit would have cost $650 without insurance, for a NP, I don’t blame them for trying to self diagnose.
  - BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
    You are proving my point talking about the percentage of deaths caused by medical errors. If you had 100,000 people receive medical care, 10 die, and 5 of them are due to medical errors, then sure, you could spin that as "50% of deaths were caused by medical errors". Never mind the context, never mind the fact that we are actually able to identify the errors in the first place! So again, if you want to ignore the safeguards that we've built for good reason - take your business to Tijuana.
  - rscho 2y ago

mhuffman 2y ago

Not to speak of the "greed" on this particular item but in Europe you can buy real time glucose monitors, portable ecg, and low calorie meal replacements over the counter. In the US, all of these require a doctor's prescription. It wouldn't take a leap in logic to think that was greed or pressure from the AMA lobby (one of the most funded lobbies in the US, btw).

rscho 2y ago
> in Europe you can buy real time glucose monitors, portable ecg, and low calorie meal replacements over the counter. True! And, aside from people with chronic conditions like diabetics, who are forced to know how their glucose levels work, nobody uses those. So it certainly does change the cost, but I don't think it would be any more useful in the US.
- mzmoen 2y ago
  That’s not true at all? There are companies like Levels who sell CGMs to non-diabetics to try and optimize their health.
  - rscho 2y ago
    In my experience, it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence. At least, I personally know no one doing that. YMMV, I guess. Also, it seems to me like a very bad idea to do that.
    - delichon 2y ago
      As a type 2 diabetic I used a couple of different glucose monitors and got a lot of benefit from them. I gave one to a friend who I thought had diabetic symptoms. First I tried to get him to go to a doctor but he wouldn't. But he tried the CGM and found numbers well into the diabetic range. Then he immediately changed his diet and started treatment. Not sure but I may have committed a crime. What was the potential harm that was greater than the reward?

phkahler 2y ago

>> Like, that's the only REAL reason? Not the technological or ethical implications? The dangers in providing people with no real concept of how any of this works the means to evaluate themselves? On the surface those all sound like additional reasons not to make it available. But they are also great rationalizations for those who want to maintain a monopoly on analysis. Personally I found all the comparisons to other AI performance bothersome. None of those were specifically trained on diagnostics AFAICT. Comparison against human experts would seem to be the appropriate way to test it. And not people just out of training taking their first test, I assume experts do better over time though I might be wrong on that.

jarrelscy 2y ago
Developer here - its a good point that most of the models were not specifically trained on diagnostic imaging, with the exception of Llava-Med. We would love to compare against other models trained on diagnostic imaging if anyone can grant us access! Comparison against human experts is the gold standard but information on human performance in the FRCR 2B Rapids examination is hard to come by - we've provided a reference (1) which shows comparable (at least numerically) performance of human radiologists. To your point around people just out of training (keeping in mind that training for the FRCR takes 5 years, while doing practicing medicine in a real clinical setting) taking their first test - the reference shows that after passing the FRCR 2B Rapids the first time, their performance actually declines (at least in the first year), so I'm not sure if experts would do better over time. 1. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/379/bmj-2022-072826.full.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/379/bmj-2022-072826.full.pdf
- rscho 2y ago
  Someone downvoted the author !? This site never ceases to amaze.