• Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yeah, instead I’m pretty sure those data centers and Theil’s AI/Anti-Christ talk are because they see the “real money” is in AI porn.

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      But that takes actual work. See how the LLM systems are constantly wrong? That is because after you get to about 80% accuracy the rest will murder you.

      This would take time and actual investment. Not something big tech can handle.

    • Thorry@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Agreed, this is exactly what reinforcement learning and neural networks are good at. Calling them AI is beyond dumb, but hey marketing will be marketing. It’s pattern recognition, which is cool, but nobody would call that intelligent otherwise. Another big issue with the marketing is they only report on the success rate and not the failure rate. Doctors praise the cases being caught, but dislike the models pointing out stuff that is clearly not a tumor. It wastes time for people already short on time. These models also risk doctors becoming over reliant on them, even though they can have serious blind spots and thus miss stuff a doctor would have caught. Or the other way around, have people receive treatment (often not without risk, discomfort and cost to the patient), where none was needed. The thing that bothers me the most is how it’s always framed as a win for AI. Like see AI is good at diagnosing cancer (which then gets extrapolated to curing cancer for some bizarre reason), so that useless chat bot is also good somehow. Because AI.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Robert Murphy’s lab at Carnegie Mellon has developing learning sets like this for 20 years.

        This is not designed to replace medical opinion, it’s designed to cross check as pathologists and radiologist have about 1% misses which is not acceptable.

  • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    21 hours ago

    That’s particularly useful for pancreatic cancer, if it’s accurate, reliable, cost effective, and practical in the real world.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 minutes ago

      seems they need scans from different patients, like alot of them to make it look accurate. i wonder how well it will do with 1 scan only, because a biopsy after 1 scan/ or another scam is unneccesary waste and expensive it detects one and finds nothing, biopsis are not pleasant. definitely on the cost and reliability, since it needs more than 1 scan, it likely would cost alot.

      another point in the article, is the “abnormal cells hiding the actual cancer cells” likely could be abnormal fibroblasts, which are found in other cancer cells that feed the cancer itself(by giving up its neutrients"

    • deathbird@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Hey lookie here, the statistical pattern matching algorithm has some uses that could help society maybe possibly. Sure beats replacing artists or building inefficient chat bots that give people the Eliza effect.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      It’s not, though and that’s the issue.

      False positives are at least as dangerous as false negatives and AI solutions like this have massive problems with over diagnosing.

      EDIT: It’s really fun to have a bunch of home-bound tech workers try to talk down to me about the science behind and practice of medicine.

      • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You’re rude, arrogant, and wildly incorrect from a medical standpoint. Please delete your message and don’t make comments like this in the future.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          No, I’m not. Sorry the ChatGPT response you got about medical science and outcomes from differing pathologies and the extremely serious dangers of pharmacological treatment from even a correct positive, to say nothing of the terrors visited on patients by false positives.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        False positives are at least as dangerous as false negatives and AI solutions like this have massive problems with over diagnosing.

        Absolutely 100% wrong.

        In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, a false positive means a follow-up scan. A false negative means death, the 5-year survival is near zero once it’s caught late, but exceeds 80% when caught early.

        In the study, the radiologists’ lower false positive rate is achieved by missing 78% of cancers. That’s not a safer trade-off, it’s just a different way to fail. “Overdiagnosis” also requires a disease that might not have harmed the patient, PDA doesn’t have a harmless form. Every missed case is a lost life while every false positive is an extra doctor’s appointment.

        This system detects twice as many cancers and was flagging them, on average, 675 days (nearly 2 years!) before clinical detection.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          You selected a single pathology which supports your otherwise specious and false argument.

          Be better.

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            13 hours ago

            If I’m wrong, then feel free to support your position with evidence or an argument showing that my statement was specious.

            I linked the, peer-reviewed, paper which contains the data that supports my statements on the topic.

            You’ve made two conclusory statements and immediately resorted to insulting comments when challenged.

            There is not a single aggressive pancreatic cancer where a false negative is more dangerous than a false positive.

            Percutaneous biopsy has a mortality rate of approximately 0.2% even relatively non-malignant pancreatic cancers (say Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm) have 10-year survival rates in adults of around 88% and that number is from cases which received surgical intervention and chemotherapy something that would not happen with a false negative.

            So even in the worst case, the false negative multiple times more deadly. A false positives’ most likely outcome is pancreatitis from the biopsy procedure.

          • unpossum@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            13 hours ago

            They selected the pathology that’s the topic of the post to support their on-topic argument. Be better, indeed.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      In other words: not useful at all. (Didn’t read the article because it already misuses the AI acronym in the title, indicating it was written by some idiot with nothing to say)

      • ivan@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Article actually describes it well enough, how scientists trained a model on data from CT scans of patients who were treated for other conditions some time before being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          In my first sentence, I was referring to the combination of adjectives in the question by previous commentor. No one in today’s health care systems is gonna pay preemptive screenings for saving peasant lives like yours or mine.

          • Otter@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            19 hours ago

            There are healthcare systems in the world other than the one in the usa

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Yes, but all of them are worsening in the interests of profit, in case you weren’t following the news. Germany is just scrapping skin cancer prevention, thanks to our corrupt fucks in government.

          • Alex@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            20 hours ago

            If course you do - if the cost of treating the patient down the line is going to cost you more. Public health systems have a vested interest in healthier citizens.

            • saimen@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Problem is they are probably from the US which doesn’t really have a public healthcare system.

              • jqubed@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Even in the US with private health insurance, those providers will pay for screenings that can save costs by catching something early. Sometimes that might be legally mandated, other times it’s based on cost/benefit. It all varies from plan to plan, but the more common a disease is the more likely they’ll pay for at least a low-cost initial screening.

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              The thing is providers of care like to make a profit though, and profit = money = influence on healthcare policies. Healthcare policies are not made solely with cost efficiency in mind, but rather to redistribute wealth from insurance payers to those who provide services. If that means a couple ten thousand of us peasants die a preventable death, then that’s a sacrifice they are willing to make.