A bit unrelated, but I'm surprised because of how second readings are performed.<p>_In the UK, each mammogram is interpreted by two readers, and in cases of disagreement, an arbitration process may invoke a third opinion. These interpretations occur serially, such that each reader has access to the opinions of previous readers._<p>I wonder if it's sensible to condition the opinion of the second radiologist this way. My first impression is that this should be done blindly or the temptation of just confirming the previous reading because of fatigue/lazynes or to avoid confrontation could severely affect the results.<p>Similarly, a future in which the radiologist gets too much support could just impair their skills and turn them into a sort of a mechanical worker who simply accepts what the AI overlord has decided.
I’m not a huge fan of turning the BI-RADS classification scheme into a ROC curve. From what I’ve seen, BI-RADS is something like a yes / no / maybe scheme for mammograms. I don’t think it was designed to be treated like a test score, so using it to generate a ROC curve feels like an unfair comparison between the AI system and current clinical practice.<p>What they’re doing is interesting, but it’s still very academic. I have little doubt that eventually some sort of AI system will benefit clinical practice, but based on the sheer number of studies that fail to make it over the line, I’m not sure I have high hopes for this one. Why they’ve done so far is the equivalent of “It works in vitro...”
> Notably, the additional cancers identified by the AI system tended to be invasive rather than in situ disease.<p>This is probably due to invasive cancers being more common (~80%) than in situ cancers. I am not sure why this natural explanation was not suggested.
> Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease, when treatment can be more successful. Despite the existence of screening programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives and false negatives. Here we present an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. [...]<p>> In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. We ran a simulation in which the AI system participated in the double-reading process that is used in the UK, and found that the AI system maintained non-inferior performance and reduced the workload of the second reader by 88%. This robust assessment of the AI system paves the way for clinical trials to improve the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.<p>So, there you have it: AI not "either/or" humans, but <i>both</i>, in conjunction, as a <i>composition</i> of the best of both worlds.<p>At the very least, that's how civilization will massively and intimately introduce true assistant AI.<p>It's also somewhat counter-intuitive to think that the most specialized tasks are the low hanging fruits; i.e. that the "difficult" to us, culminating years of training and experience for humans (e.g. how to read a medical scan) may be, per its natural advantages (like speed and parallelism), "easy" to the machine.<p>That space (where machine expertise is cheaper than human) roughly maps to the immense value attributed to the rise of industrial-age narrow AI; therein lies not a way to replace humans — we never did that in history, merely destroyed <i>jobs</i> to create ever more — but rather to <i>augment</i> ourselves once more to whole new levels of performance.<p>Anything more than this is AGI-level, science-fiction so far — and there's not even a shred of evidence that it's theoretically a sure thing, possible in the first place. Which is not to say that AI safety research isn't <i>extremely important</i> even for the narrow kind (manipulation comes to mind), but we shouldn't go as far as to bet future economic growth on its existence. Like fusion or interstellar travel, we just don't know. Yet, and for the foreseeable future, because scale.
There were like 80 different vendors showing assisted ai in many different spaces at RSNA 2019<p>Well known every major pacs vendor is looking for assisted findings (some have been available for ages, ex: icad bi-rads finding for telling rad to check) or even just case prioritization for radiologists.
(Ex: aidoc has an algorithm for brain bleed for case prioritization, not a diagnosis).<p>They all are employing machine learning really (zebra medical claims 30 million scans processed).<p>Medical "ai" "algorithms" companies are vastly growing in the past few years
Paywalled scientific research, no source code and the reviewers who don't mind calling run off the mill CNNs as "our AI system".<p>How far Nature has fallen these days? How long before Nature is merely PR agency for the big tech?
Related from 2 days ago: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21917747" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21917747</a>. This looks like different work though?