3 ms·
The original study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11547-025-02161-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11547-025-02161-1 It was retrospect
by levocardia 9mo ago
The original study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11547-025-02161-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11547-025-02161-1
It was retrospective-only, i.e. a case series on women who were known to have breast cancer, so there were zero false negatives and zero true negatives, because all patients in the study truly had cancer.
The AI system used was a ConvNet used commercially circa 2021, which is when the data for this case series were collected.
- boxed 9mo agoI believe there's a big issue in the US of over-diagnosing breast cancer too. "Known to have breast cancer" might not be so clear cut.
- ako 9mo agoThat statement would benefit from a link to your source.
- boxed 9mo agohttps://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2025/11/18/overdiagnosis-when-finding-cancer-can-do-more-harm-than-good/ https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2025/11/18/overdiagnosis-w... Is about the UK, but it's a good description of the danger of over-diagnosis. When the treatment for a diagnosis includes radiation therapy, over-diagnosis can literally cause cancer.
- operatingthetan 9mo ago>The AI system used was a ConvNet used commercially circa 2021, which is when the data for this case series were collected. Does this mean that newer AI systems would perform significantly differently?
- dfee 9mo agoWell, certainly not. We shouldn’t draw conclusions about modern AI systems from multi-generation old systems: one way or the other.
- f1shy 9mo agoNot at all. There is no implication, implicit or explicit, that anything in the world is better or worse. It is just a statement of fact.
- operatingthetan 9mo ago>better or worse. Please quote where I used either word.
- energy123 9mo agoStrictly in terms of architecture, CNNs are still SOTA for small data visual tasks, especially when the target is a locally specific phenomenon where global context isn't as necessary. It has good inductive bias for this. The main known way to improve performance on tasks like this is getting more data.
- aurareturn 9mo ago2021 is an eternity in AI industry. Edit: I have a problem with the way the title uses "AI" as a singular unchanging entity. It should really be "An AI system misses nearly...". There is no single AI and models are constantly improving - sometimes exponentially better.
- OJFord 9mo ago> It was retrospective-only, i.e. a case series on women who were known to have breast cancer, so there were zero false negatives and zero true negatives, because all patients in the study truly had cancer. Well yes, that's the denominator for determining selectivity, which is what the headline claim is about. Also, they need to set up their next paper: > However, the retrospective, cancer-only design limits generalizability, highlighting the need for prospective multicenter screening trials for validation.
- d0liver 9mo ago> there were zero false negatives Wouldn't this mean that AI identitied them all has having cancer?
- cbarnes99 9mo agoThey did all have cancer
- d0liver 9mo agoYes, but then the study result should be, "AI correctly identifies 100% of breast cancers in study" If we're saying there was a discrepancy and we're saying that all of the patients had cancer, then it would seem that there must have been some that were identified as not having cancer by AI.