Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

hvgotcodes t1_jb3611d wrote

Isn’t this known, that AI image recognition is incredibly accurate? Hopefully will expand access to health care, lower costs, and aid early detection for many or all forms of cancer.

88

Darryl_Lict t1_jb49tuz wrote

I thought that computer recognition of dangerous cancers was superior to human doctors years ago. Have the AI do the initial recognition then have a human doctor confirm it.

25

ch4m3le0n t1_jb4b4ia wrote

Spoiler, it's not any more accurate than a rookie radiologist.

10

DragonflyGrrl t1_jb6h4kl wrote

>Another [doctor] told the Times he was shocked at how effective the AI programs were after he presented the software with some of the most difficult cases of his career — including instances in which other radiologists had missed signs of cancer in a scan — and the program correctly identified the cancer every time.

3

ch4m3le0n t1_jb9262z wrote

This is purely anecdotal on the doctors behalf. There are companies like Annalise.ai which are using hundreds of radiologists to train models for just one type of cancer, and the best they can do is sanity check, so far. This is likely one of those cases. There is a role for AI in this process, but it still requires a radiologist to interpret.

The bigger issue than finding cancers you missed is actually false positives, finding cancers that aren't really there. Thats a much harder problem. Imagine having to get a breast biopsy for a cancer that doesn't exist. That's the state of the art today.

1

FunnyMathematician77 t1_jb45cq5 wrote

I remember hearing about some issue with cancer recognizing AI. The AI was trained to associate a "ruler" with cancerous growth, because images of malignant tumors usually have some scale ruler thing while benign ones don't I guess. I don't know how accurate that is, but it does seem possible.

4

Dartiboi t1_jb45n29 wrote

Yeah that would definitely happen if you didn’t remove that from the image. It’s a pretty simple fix though.

7

[deleted] t1_jb47r6g wrote

Yeah most major tech companies are researching this stuff.

1

pinkfootthegoose t1_jb72vqc wrote

lower costs.. hahahahahahahahaha.

that's not how health care works when people are the revenue source and not the customer.

1

P_Griffin2 t1_jb4ry7x wrote

I Imagine AI will replace doctors completely within a decade or two.

−3

Norseviking4 t1_jb7jq98 wrote

I look forwars to ai and machines taking over as much as possible of healthcare. AI that is never tired, never have a bad day, never distracted would be a huge comfort to me.

I really dont trust people (i have had several bad experiences with bad doctors)

1

Current_Side_4024 t1_jb36s06 wrote

Yea I’m pretty sure we could replace all that work with AI tomorrow and would save millions of lives…but doctors gotta have McMansions so we’re gonna take twenty years to make the transition instead

−13

-Ch4s3- t1_jb3t2nx wrote

I used to work along side someone who worked on this kind of problem. The issues was then and probably still is that there isn’t enough good and labeled training data. You can’t just hoover up every breast cancer image in the world, they’re locked away on servers in hospital basements and belong to the patients (at least in the US) and every country has different laws about using this stuff for research, much less a commercial system. Some national health services have tried this with their own data and results have so far been unimpressive.

12

MD_House t1_jb47tgk wrote

That is correct, I was part of a team using a CNN to predict survival days of glioma patients but getting data is really really hard. And we also didn't get the amount of images we actually wanted.

5

seriousbeef t1_jb3x390 wrote

Tech guru Vinod Khosla of Sun Microsystems has said that radiologists will be obsolete in 5 years.

Unfortunately that was more than 5 years ago and he was so incredibly wrong it is hilarious. People with no idea what radiologists actually do and just how complex medical imaging interpretation is love to jump to the conclusion that AI is automatically better. One day I’m sure it could be but it will be a while longer. Until then it will augment us and make us better at our jobs like this example in breast imaging.

Vinod doubled down in 2019 and said any radiologist still practicing in 10 years will be killling patients every day which is hilarious because I just don’t do that much work. I would kill someone once a month at most.

Edit: the other thing is all these companies charge for their service. It all costs money. AI isn’t free.

9

ch4m3le0n t1_jb4b7sy wrote

Most of this tech is currently not as good as a real radiologist. Detecting cancers is a lot harder than it looks, and is often not just based on the imaging, but a raft of other factors.

15

epigenie_986 t1_jb4kdux wrote

We might need AI to do a pass, along with a radiologist. I found a lump, hand it imaged and dismissed by a radiologist. A different radiologist takes a look, decides to biopsy, it’s found to be cancer. If a computer can take a look and save time of two radiologists looking, I’m game. People make mistakes. It is what it is.

16

ch4m3le0n t1_jb92ihp wrote

That's fine, and that happens today - in fact second opinions are a really important part of the process (both for you and the radiologists), but the AI is going to be of low value to you there, since it's accuracy is no better.

There is some value in having the AI sanity check the radiologist, but if they differ you are going to need two radiologists anyway.

I'm sorry to hear about your diagnosis, however, and I wish you a healthy future.

1

ChronWeasely t1_jb4onro wrote

From the article it said this AI is at least as effective as radiologists, and far faster.

4

ch4m3le0n t1_jb92khv wrote

I run a company in the medical imaging space. It's not as effective, yet. The article is wrong.

1

Aman4672 t1_jb3igdh wrote

More effective than doctors??? I bet an ai that just wants to look at boobs wrote this./s

12

rogert2 t1_jb39f47 wrote

This is a really good idea.

Human doctors have a worse detection rate than you'd want, but not for the reason you'd think: they aren't incompetent, it's that humans are really bad at recognition tasks when the thing they are looking for is rare.

To illustrate: if I gave you 5 x-rays and told you that exactly one of them definitely has cancer, you'll find it. But if I give you 500 x-rays and zero promises about whether any of them have cancer, you'll be less reliable.

This is true whether or not the human is tired from a "long shift." It has to do with the way humans pay attention, and how our expectations influence what we observe. False-negatives go down as the sample size gets lower, or if the incidence increases. If 1% of the 500 x-rays have cancer, a human may only spot 3 or 4 of the 5. But if there are 50 with cancer, the human detection rate increases.

AI won't have this problem.

(Source: an intro psych class I took, which actually used breast-cancer detection as the vehicle for studying human attention.)

10

Lydiafae t1_jb4rna6 wrote

It also tracks that many doctors minimize or dismiss women's health issues. AI would prevent more of this bias, which would lead to more accurate health diagnostic metrics. Which I am all for given my personal experience.

0

ixM t1_jb5n6qp wrote

This is wrong. Because datasets are collected by humans they suffer from lots of different biases that are really hard to identify and remove. It's becoming a huge research topic.

1

rogert2 t1_jb7pd81 wrote

I don't think that "doctors dismissing patients concerns" is a source of failure to detect breast cancer via mammograms.

I assume women generally get mammograms because health experts recommend regular checks for all women. The reason radiologists fail to detect breast cancer in some x-rays is not that they aren't taking women seriously, because the women weren't coming in with symptoms or complaints -- they came in for a preventative screening. Radiologists sometimes fail to detect breast cancer because each radiologist looks at thousands of essentially identical x-rays over their career, breast cancer is uncommon, and cancer that does exist is hard to visually recognize in its early stages.

I'm not saying that people don't dismiss the complaints of women, whether in a healthcare or other context. But that's not what's going on here, because breast cancer checks are generally driven by prevention rather than symptoms.

1

AdmiralKurita t1_jb39t7w wrote

I think we heard this all before, AI can be good at analyzing images, perhaps arriving at judgments that are more accurate than professionals. But, we are decades away from replacing radiologists who know the nuances of the medical theories required to interpret the images.

8

[deleted] t1_jb46tev wrote

[deleted]

2

AviationAdam t1_jb4u636 wrote

Its not? Medicine has never been, and will never be an exact science. There’s currently no AI equipped to deal with all the nuisances that come with each patient.

1

[deleted] t1_jb4vu6h wrote

[deleted]

0

AviationAdam t1_jb4yhnk wrote

I’m not saying AI won’t assist in the medical workplace but to think it will replace doctors in the next 20-30 years is an asinine thought

2

[deleted] t1_jb7bjpr wrote

[deleted]

0

AviationAdam t1_jb7ektk wrote

It’s very fun saying things with no basis of claim. I looked up your claim and could find no academic studies, or even news articles that are showing this is happening right now. There’s about a dozen talking about how it might happen, but unsurprisingly not one showing how it’s currently happening.

In fact most articles were showing how there is a huge accountant shortage and they can’t hire enough… huh funny I thought your AI was replacing them.

1

zerogravitas365 t1_jb3jdzj wrote

TBF they did make similar clams about expert systems (older readers may remember this form of AI) in limited diagnostic fields back in the 80's. Modern AI that can has the storage and processing power to chomp through a huge pile of imaging data and has adaptive abilities should be really rather good at this sort of thing. There must be a huge volume of training data (potentially) available given the national screening programs that take place in various parts of the world. These claims seem quite reasonable to me.

6

tigerkingsam t1_jb3q3y4 wrote

This is old news, people have already implemented deep learning models to detect cancer. The problem right now is getting more data, it’s all protected and regulated.

4

wex52 t1_jb4vnd6 wrote

That was my first thought. When I read journal articles that are comparing new data science techniques, it isn’t uncommon to use a breast cancer data set as a benchmark. At least the article does mention that companies have been doing this for years.

1

Gari_305 OP t1_jb2p9lu wrote

From the article

>The ever-growing wave of artificial intelligence technology is continuing to expand into the field of medicine, as several clinics across the globe begin experimenting with AI to help doctors detect breast cancer.
>
>Hungary has been one of the largest and earliest adopters of the technology, as at least five hospitals or clinics that perform thousands of breast cancer scans per year have used AI programs since 2021, according to the New York Times. The success of using AI to detect cancer in the Hungarian clinics has inspired doctors in England, Scotland, and Finland to also experiment with the technology, per the Times.
>
>In a study published last year that charted an AI program's ability to identify breast cancer in 250,000 scans, the technology was found to be as effective, if not more so, than a human radiologist, and was also able to read scans more quickly overall.
>
>The study concluded that incorporating the technologies into the medical field could reduce the workload of radiologists by having an automated system that can provide a second opinion quickly and accurately.

3

SmokedHamm t1_jb3wz6n wrote

Or it’s a way for those pervert robot overloads to get their virtual hands on free boob pics

3

floofstar t1_jb4oi23 wrote

AI is soon going to do everything blah blah blah blarghh uhhhh pfffft!!

3

Deepfriedwithcheese t1_jb3a5tv wrote

IBM’s Watson has been doing this sort of thing for awhile now:

https://www.medicaldaily.com/5-ways-ibm-watson-changing-health-care-diagnosing-disease-treating-it-364394

2

Healma t1_jb4yxzo wrote

I work litteraly on the mammogram we can see on this picture.

AI will be used every time in less that 5 years. It has already begun with really promising results. So yeah.

2

FuturologyBot t1_jb2tpt0 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the article

>The ever-growing wave of artificial intelligence technology is continuing to expand into the field of medicine, as several clinics across the globe begin experimenting with AI to help doctors detect breast cancer.
>
>Hungary has been one of the largest and earliest adopters of the technology, as at least five hospitals or clinics that perform thousands of breast cancer scans per year have used AI programs since 2021, according to the New York Times. The success of using AI to detect cancer in the Hungarian clinics has inspired doctors in England, Scotland, and Finland to also experiment with the technology, per the Times.
>
>In a study published last year that charted an AI program's ability to identify breast cancer in 250,000 scans, the technology was found to be as effective, if not more so, than a human radiologist, and was also able to read scans more quickly overall.
>
>The study concluded that incorporating the technologies into the medical field could reduce the workload of radiologists by having an automated system that can provide a second opinion quickly and accurately.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11ji0aj/artificial_intelligence_could_soon_be_widely_used/jb2p9lu/

1

Null_and_Lloyd t1_jb3y4b4 wrote

All data, records and history should be processed through AI. There is no way humanly possible to process or even remember all factors that could lead to an accurate analysis. Don't flip out, MD's. It is a tool to help in diagnosis. No slight to your skills or intelligence.

1

neo6912 t1_jb4gipq wrote

ive seen this about 244720572 times in the past 6 years now

1

ailish t1_jb4ril5 wrote

That'll be cool since breast cancer runs in my family.

1

justanothermind666 t1_jb4rjjy wrote

Fuck artificial inteligence! i feel rejected like in my fucking life im a drug adict alright? (still more interesting than fb)

1

cote112 t1_jb4zy36 wrote

I'd agree. After looking at the mammogram, a doctor told my Mom she was fine.

It was the tech who saved her life.

1

twasjc t1_jb5guwy wrote

It can already do this over wifi. It can even delete it over wifi

1

rickdeckard8 t1_jb65tpl wrote

Maybe we should stop using “intelligence” to denote anything that a computer does through a deep neural network. AI was termed as the intelligence shown by a machine that resembles what humans mean by intelligence. Reinforced learning from a limited set of pictures to predict future pictures has nothing to do with what we call intelligence.

1

Apprehensive_Row3679 t1_jd7lbrv wrote

A recent study suggests that artificial intelligence may be more effective than doctors at detecting breast cancer and could soon be widely used for this purpose.

1

RhetoricalCracker84 t1_jb4o5qm wrote

As an AI language model, I am unable to detect breast cancer…

0

fripaek t1_jb46px5 wrote

angry boob fiddling doctor noises

My message in here was to short so I‘m artificially streching it. Auto-Bot-Mod won‘t know and you can simly ignore these words. I wish you all a fruitful week my dear Redditors.

−2