3 ms·
I'd greatly prefer a blind study comparing doctors to AI, rather than a study of doctors feeding AI scenarios and seeing if it matches their predetermined outco
by WarmWash 8mo ago
I'd greatly prefer a blind study comparing doctors to AI, rather than a study of doctors feeding AI scenarios and seeing if it matches their predetermined outcome.
Edit: People seem confused here. The study was feeding the AI structured clinical scenarios and seeing it's results. The study was not a live analyses of AI being used in the field to treat patients.
- qsera 8mo agoYea, that is exactly why I don't like this. These "experts", they have no problem to tout anecdotes when it serves them..
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- riskassessment 8mo agoI don't understand this reasoning. Randomizing people to AI vs standard of care is expensive and risky. Checking whether the AI can pass hypothetical scenarios seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to researching the safety of these models before running a clinical trial.
- nick49488171 8mo agoYou can start by comparing "doctor" care vs "doctor who also uses AI" care
- WarmWash 8mo agoYou would pass those hypothetical scenarios to doctors too, and then the analyses of results would be done by doctors who don't know if it's an AI or doctor result.
- riskassessment 8mo agoFrom the paper > Three physicians independently assigned gold-standard triage levels based on cited clinical guidelines and clinical expertise, with high inter-rater agreement
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- aqme28 8mo agoYou're misunderstanding. What this paper did-- Those three physicians set a ground truth to compare the AI response to. What people in this thread are asking for-- Evaluate a set of doctors on those cases as well, and compare doctor vs AI accuracy.
- selridge 8mo agoThe issue is that those hypothetical scenarios do not have to look like how patients actually interact with the tool. Real life use is full of ill posed questions open ended statements inaccurate assessment of symptoms, and conclusory remarks sprinkled in between. Real use of chat bots for Health by non-clinicians looks very different than scenario based evaluation.
- nradov 8mo agoI don't understand what you're proposing. How would you design such a study in a way that would pass IRB?
- SoftTalker 8mo agoFeed it randomly selected case histories? See if it came up with the same diagnosis as the doctors?
- nradov 8mo agoI don't think that would tell us anything useful. The data quality in most patient charts is shockingly bad. I've seen a lot of them while working on clinical systems interoperability. Garbage in / garbage out. When human physicians make a diagnosis they typically rely on a lot of inputs that never appear in the patient chart. And in most cases the diagnosis is the easy part. I mean we see occasional horror stories about misdiagnosis but those are rare. The harder and more important part is coming up with an effective treatment plan which the patient will actually follow, and then monitoring progress while making adjustments as needed. So a focus on the diagnosis portion of clinical decision support seems fundamentally misguided.
- qsera 8mo ago> When human physicians make a diagnosis they typically rely on a lot of inputs that never appear in the patient chart. Yea, like how rich the patient is or if they are on insurance etc. I wish I was kidding.
- PearlRiver 8mo agoThis the real reason why some people go to chatGPT instead of a GP. I am glad to live in a country were going to the doctor is free.
- dyauspitr 8mo agoIt’s all case histories and text no real person is affected by this.
- hwillis 8mo agoWe have standards of care for a reason. They are the most basic requirements of testing. Ignoring them is not just being a bad doctor, its unethical treatment. Its the absolute bare minimum of a medical system.
- lmkg 8mo agoThat type of experimental set-up is forbidden due to ethical concerns. It goes against medical ethics to give patients treatment that you think might be worse.
- RandomLensman 8mo agoFeeding scenarios is not without challenges as some things, for example, smell, would be "pre-processed" by humans before fed into the AI, I think.
- dekoidal 8mo agoYou're joking right? This is the 'testing on mice' phase and it failed and your idea is to start dosing humans just to see what happens.
- selridge 8mo agoHuman use is already widespread. You might as well complain in 2015 about the use of Wikipedia among emergency room doctors. That ship has sailed.
- lkey 8mo agoThis 'preference' is sociopathic, illegal, and stupid.
- GorbachevyChase 8mo agoThe number of people who die each year just in the United States for causes attributable to medical errors is believed to be in the hundreds of thousands. A doctor’s opinion is not the golden yardstick. It may be interesting to study if there is some kind of signal in general health outcomes in the US since the popularization of ChatGPT for this purpose. It may be a while before we have enough data to know. I could see it going either way.