2 ms·
> "and is “actually better than human beings,” he told the audience. “For women who aren’t considered high risk, if the test comes back negative, it’s wrong on
by voidUpdate 6mo ago
> "and is “actually better than human beings,” he told the audience.
“For women who aren’t considered high risk, if the test comes back negative, it’s wrong only about 3 times out of 10,000,” Lubarsky said. "
What's the false negative rate for human beings? And what about women that are considered high risk? Is it better or worse?
- malfist 6mo agoI'm also suspicious of that 3 out of 10k times. Did they compare an AI examination against a human 10,000 times in novel scenarios? Or did they run it against some data set that's probably in the training data? Or did they run it against some synthetic dataset that is not a good representation of the real world? Or did they run 5 tests, found zero inaccuracies and extrapolated to 10,000 but though 0 mistakes was too unbelievable and would give away the game. Did they test the xray on only uncomplicated cases like young healthy people with no deformities? Or did they test it on complex cases too, maybe cases where there are multiple issues and some should be ignored, like elderly or people with different shaped bodies. Also, what is "wrong" here? Is it a false negative, or a false positive? Is it a misdiagnosis? There's levels of wrongness, especially in the medical field.
- voidUpdate 6mo ago"wrong" is a false negative. It says that if the test came back negative, it was wrong 3 in 10,000 times, which means there was actually cancer that it didn't find
- readthenotes1 6mo agoBack before things got way worse, the false negative rate from a human human radiologist was 10 out of 10,000. https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/medical-imaging/womens-imaging/mammography-false-negative-rates-rising-driven-few-key-factors https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/medical-imaging/womens-...