4 ms·

As a rad tech, YOU TELL ‘EM DOC! I do like some uses of AI I’ve seen that help patients advocate for themselves or understand basic things like blood panel numb

by rylando 3mo ago

As a rad tech, YOU TELL ‘EM DOC! I do like some uses of AI I’ve seen that help patients advocate for themselves or understand basic things like blood panel numbers, but it’s really bad at glazing people and leading them down medical rabbit holes kind of like the OP. You would think that the AI would point out that calcium is best demonstrated on Radiographs/CT imaging vs Ultrasound or something to that effect.

garciasn 3mo ago
Semi-related: my father has complications from a motorcycle accident ~25y ago that crushed arteries in his leg coupled with diabetes (insulin / kept sugar at ~100 and his A1C was kept under 6.7 for ~15y). 6w ago had to have his toes removed due to dry gangrene; they eventually (2.5w ago) had to remove his leg below the knee because of the severe blood flow issues below the knee. Between the toes and the below the knee amputation, there were no less than 15 different doctors and PAs / related personnel who COULD NOT COME TO A CONSENSUS. They would just tell my mother and I (PoA) the details; they refused to come up with a singular plan of action moving forward, leaving it up to us to make 'an informed decision,' something that's IMPOSSIBLE when you have to take up to 15 different opinions into consideration. What exactly are we supposed to do as patients/family members when medical personnel cannot give reasonable paths forward and instead just throw a bunch of shit over the fence at you and tell you, "you decide what to do from here," regardless of how many VERY DIRECT conversations I had w/the 'care team' on doing better to provide a limited array of options and reasons/likelihood of 'positive outcomes'. I'm used to dealing with a wide variety of stakeholders/SMEs in decision-making; it's my job to apply my extensive industry experience to present our clients with their options, ranked and reasoned. Doctors, in my experience and most recently with my father, clearly do NOT do that (I assume due to liability; but, no real idea, honestly). So; when dealing with LIFE CHANGING circumstances, what are we supposed to do except rely on what might be able to offer more analysis and option narrowing w/AI? I certainly don't want to make the job of medical staff more difficult by putting out crazy theories I found on the interwebbernets through my own research, etc; but, when we're having to deal with uncertainty and insanity, what else can we do?
- resonious 3mo ago
  This lines up with my experience with my mother, though it played out differently. In her case, she would switch doctors every ~5-10 years and each time they'd basically say everything the previous doctor said was wrong. First it was "you have Lupus", second it was "actually it's some other autoimmune disease", then it was "actually whatever you had has been in remission for some time now and you've been taking brain-numming medicine for no reason." Then it was "you have cancer", "it's a rare one", and "oh turns out the brain-numming meds have a correlation with rare cancers". The cancer part was handled well (albeit unsuccessful) though. After such a bad time with rheumatologists, I was shocked by how competent people were when it came to cancer. All of the above was intertwined with brief stints with doctors that would just berate her for being a painkiller junkie, even though she hated the stuff and just wanted to find/fix the problem. Kind of a rant, really. I'm not sure how to tie it back into AI. I do wish we had AI at the time so that we could at least cross-check, but I also understand that doctors are already sick of patients self-diagnosing on the web and that AI probably just makes that worse. At the same time, if our medical system could catch up a bit (more doctors? less corruption/paperwork? not sure what it needs) then maybe people would be less inclined to take matters into their own hands.
  - anon84873628 3mo ago
    I'm sorry to hear that. The accusations of drug seeking are particularly galling. AI is absolutely a god send for patients navigating the medical system. I know the US system is horrible and I sympathize with doctors doing their best within it. But we must admit, they are also responsible for the countless stories just like yours, and have contributed to the public's deteriorating trust of medical institutions. It's not just the insurance companies and conglomerate CEOs.
  - picofarad 3mo ago
    I recently discovered I am allergic to hydrocodone and codeine, and the effort I had to go through to get oxy instead was stressful and I felt I had to bring all of the extra pills with me everywhere to show I wasn't drug seeking or selling them. And I pointed out that inwaa shooting myself in the foot for all future desires by asserting I am allergic. P. S. Opiates work, very well. If you tale one and it doesn't work, you might also be allergic. Hydro didnt really work, then itching and puking started after 2 days of untouched pain(essentially, a reduction of 2 points). Codeine nausea. I wasn't aware of the possibility.
Eufrat 3mo ago
I feel like the promise of these models is to help people make more informed decisions. Improving the knowledge economy and general understanding. The problem is these are just statistical models at the end of the day, so you need to know something to be able to identify the errors. You can’t let them really be autonomous and you also can’t really have people turn into glorified approvers. If the machine is correct 89% of the time, you cannot make people responsible for that 11%. It’ll just cause automation fatigue. tl;dr: the actual use cases of these LLM (or generative AI in general) is rather limited, so it is offensive how much hay has been given to them eating the entire capitalist system. They are not fit for purpose.
- anon84873628 3mo ago
  Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images? The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do.
  - Eufrat 3mo ago
    > Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images? Humans can identify. A computer vision model can return a statistical value. Both can make errors, but these errors are orthogonal to how we work and what is being asked of them. I think a CV model can absolutely provide value as augmentation. Identifying possible misses or a different diagnosis worth considering, but that is not what is being asked of them here. The pitch by Altman and Amodei is not to say, “This tool that might cost $1,000/month can help increase the accuracy of your diagnoses by 10%,” instead it’s, “This tool can allow you to keep 10% of your workers to monitor it and you can fire the rest. Also, the workers carry all the liability.” > The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do. People need to stop making this baseless claim. Human beings are not stochastic computing devices, we are not neural networks. We don’t fully understand human cognition and intelligence. I have the highest confidence we will figure it out one day, though. Yes, neural networks were based on a superficial view of the human brain, that’s it. For instance, it is biological impossible for the human brain to do backpropagation, which is kind of important for a modern neural net. This really rubs me the wrong way because it's objectively false, but people keep bring it up because I think people want it to be true rather than accepting generative AI for what it is: a tool with a bunch of caveats.
mring33621 3mo ago
i'm sorry, but AIs only "know" about stuff that they have been trained on. If we would allow AIs to be trained on the petabytes of medical data hidden in hospital systems, they would most likely be much better at diagnosing illnesses and conditions than the average doctor. (Justifiable) Privacy around medical records so far prevents this. You think you're cheering for humans, but in fact you are gatekeeping healthcare.
- prirun 3mo ago
  I dunno... if we gave an AI all of these medical records as training data, wouldn't it be trained to give the same answers as the doctors already gave, without knowing whether those diagnoses were correct or not?
  - anon84873628 3mo ago
    Except it would see all the times similar starting conditions led to different diagnosis and recognize those contradictions. Or all the different treatments and their outcomes. And it would never forget or have bias. It would be like the sum of all medical professors in existence.
Fr0styMatt88 3mo ago
Your see this in coding agents too. The only times so far I’ve really seen Opus tie itself into a knot is where I’ve asked it to fix something that I thought was broken but actually wasn’t in the way I had described. It will bias towards your description (I’m guessing because that’s the most recent context it has?).

by rylando 3mo ago

garciasn 3mo ago

Semi-related: my father has complications from a motorcycle accident ~25y ago that crushed arteries in his leg coupled with diabetes (insulin / kept sugar at ~100 and his A1C was kept under 6.7 for ~15y). 6w ago had to have his toes removed due to dry gangrene; they eventually (2.5w ago) had to remove his leg below the knee because of the severe blood flow issues below the knee. Between the toes and the below the knee amputation, there were no less than 15 different doctors and PAs / related personnel who COULD NOT COME TO A CONSENSUS. They would just tell my mother and I (PoA) the details; they refused to come up with a singular plan of action moving forward, leaving it up to us to make 'an informed decision,' something that's IMPOSSIBLE when you have to take up to 15 different opinions into consideration. What exactly are we supposed to do as patients/family members when medical personnel cannot give reasonable paths forward and instead just throw a bunch of shit over the fence at you and tell you, "you decide what to do from here," regardless of how many VERY DIRECT conversations I had w/the 'care team' on doing better to provide a limited array of options and reasons/likelihood of 'positive outcomes'. I'm used to dealing with a wide variety of stakeholders/SMEs in decision-making; it's my job to apply my extensive industry experience to present our clients with their options, ranked and reasoned. Doctors, in my experience and most recently with my father, clearly do NOT do that (I assume due to liability; but, no real idea, honestly). So; when dealing with LIFE CHANGING circumstances, what are we supposed to do except rely on what might be able to offer more analysis and option narrowing w/AI? I certainly don't want to make the job of medical staff more difficult by putting out crazy theories I found on the interwebbernets through my own research, etc; but, when we're having to deal with uncertainty and insanity, what else can we do?

resonious 3mo ago
This lines up with my experience with my mother, though it played out differently. In her case, she would switch doctors every ~5-10 years and each time they'd basically say everything the previous doctor said was wrong. First it was "you have Lupus", second it was "actually it's some other autoimmune disease", then it was "actually whatever you had has been in remission for some time now and you've been taking brain-numming medicine for no reason." Then it was "you have cancer", "it's a rare one", and "oh turns out the brain-numming meds have a correlation with rare cancers". The cancer part was handled well (albeit unsuccessful) though. After such a bad time with rheumatologists, I was shocked by how competent people were when it came to cancer. All of the above was intertwined with brief stints with doctors that would just berate her for being a painkiller junkie, even though she hated the stuff and just wanted to find/fix the problem. Kind of a rant, really. I'm not sure how to tie it back into AI. I do wish we had AI at the time so that we could at least cross-check, but I also understand that doctors are already sick of patients self-diagnosing on the web and that AI probably just makes that worse. At the same time, if our medical system could catch up a bit (more doctors? less corruption/paperwork? not sure what it needs) then maybe people would be less inclined to take matters into their own hands.
- anon84873628 3mo ago
  I'm sorry to hear that. The accusations of drug seeking are particularly galling. AI is absolutely a god send for patients navigating the medical system. I know the US system is horrible and I sympathize with doctors doing their best within it. But we must admit, they are also responsible for the countless stories just like yours, and have contributed to the public's deteriorating trust of medical institutions. It's not just the insurance companies and conglomerate CEOs.
- picofarad 3mo ago
  I recently discovered I am allergic to hydrocodone and codeine, and the effort I had to go through to get oxy instead was stressful and I felt I had to bring all of the extra pills with me everywhere to show I wasn't drug seeking or selling them. And I pointed out that inwaa shooting myself in the foot for all future desires by asserting I am allergic. P. S. Opiates work, very well. If you tale one and it doesn't work, you might also be allergic. Hydro didnt really work, then itching and puking started after 2 days of untouched pain(essentially, a reduction of 2 points). Codeine nausea. I wasn't aware of the possibility.

Eufrat 3mo ago

I feel like the promise of these models is to help people make more informed decisions. Improving the knowledge economy and general understanding. The problem is these are just statistical models at the end of the day, so you need to know something to be able to identify the errors. You can’t let them really be autonomous and you also can’t really have people turn into glorified approvers. If the machine is correct 89% of the time, you cannot make people responsible for that 11%. It’ll just cause automation fatigue. tl;dr: the actual use cases of these LLM (or generative AI in general) is rather limited, so it is offensive how much hay has been given to them eating the entire capitalist system. They are not fit for purpose.

anon84873628 3mo ago
Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images? The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do.
- Eufrat 3mo ago
  > Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images? Humans can identify. A computer vision model can return a statistical value. Both can make errors, but these errors are orthogonal to how we work and what is being asked of them. I think a CV model can absolutely provide value as augmentation. Identifying possible misses or a different diagnosis worth considering, but that is not what is being asked of them here. The pitch by Altman and Amodei is not to say, “This tool that might cost $1,000/month can help increase the accuracy of your diagnoses by 10%,” instead it’s, “This tool can allow you to keep 10% of your workers to monitor it and you can fire the rest. Also, the workers carry all the liability.” > The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do. People need to stop making this baseless claim. Human beings are not stochastic computing devices, we are not neural networks. We don’t fully understand human cognition and intelligence. I have the highest confidence we will figure it out one day, though. Yes, neural networks were based on a superficial view of the human brain, that’s it. For instance, it is biological impossible for the human brain to do backpropagation, which is kind of important for a modern neural net. This really rubs me the wrong way because it's objectively false, but people keep bring it up because I think people want it to be true rather than accepting generative AI for what it is: a tool with a bunch of caveats.

mring33621 3mo ago

i'm sorry, but AIs only "know" about stuff that they have been trained on. If we would allow AIs to be trained on the petabytes of medical data hidden in hospital systems, they would most likely be much better at diagnosing illnesses and conditions than the average doctor. (Justifiable) Privacy around medical records so far prevents this. You think you're cheering for humans, but in fact you are gatekeeping healthcare.

prirun 3mo ago
I dunno... if we gave an AI all of these medical records as training data, wouldn't it be trained to give the same answers as the doctors already gave, without knowing whether those diagnoses were correct or not?
- anon84873628 3mo ago
  Except it would see all the times similar starting conditions led to different diagnosis and recognize those contradictions. Or all the different treatments and their outcomes. And it would never forget or have bias. It would be like the sum of all medical professors in existence.

Fr0styMatt88 3mo ago

Your see this in coding agents too. The only times so far I’ve really seen Opus tie itself into a knot is where I’ve asked it to fix something that I thought was broken but actually wasn’t in the way I had described. It will bias towards your description (I’m guessing because that’s the most recent context it has?).