TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

How will a doctors profession change by tech in the next 10 years?

13 pointsby aaronwalkeralmost 3 years ago
Medical students spend years studying the ins and outs of disease--every symptom and its possible disease. Humans are naturally not very good at probability, so it can be easy for doctors to overly diagnose rare conditions. With machine learning getting more powerful every year and digital health devices like Apple watches becoming more mainstream, I do wonder if the need for encyclopedic knowledge will decline, and that tech will become better at preventing disease than doctors are. Maybe their role will shift to being able to analyze the insight that ML provides, and not having to diagnose disease by symptoms directly.

12 comments

rapjr9almost 3 years ago
There is not going to be an AI revolution in medicine until medical care becomes computerized. Electronic medical record systems were required some years ago but there were no standards so everyone is using different systems with few standards and they are not interoperable. So little of the data collected by the medical system is computerized (and a lot of the computerized data is in simple text fields where anything can entered with no common format) and hence can not be used to train AI's, and can't even be searched for precedent except within local systems. The NHS in the UK is in better shape, but in the US, even though businesses computerized many decades ago, clinicians resisted computerization and even now complain about it and it is not standardized. This makes the kind of large scale studies the UK is doing (500,000 participants) impossible in the US. The damage this will do to the US is very large scale and it will take decades to recover, if it ever does now that all the incompatible systems are embedded.
kdtopalmost 3 years ago
Medicine is not all about diagnostics. Much of it is also about case management. Encouraging people to do the things that they should have learned from their mothers. Probably 80% or more of my intellectual work as PCP I suspect could soon be accomplished by a computer. Buy many seniors (who tend to need more medical care) don&#x27;t want to interface with a computer and prefer instead to have a human being that they trust and who they know are working to help them. Once you get your medical care from a computer screen, ala&#x27; getting money from an ATM, things will change.<p>But I agree that the future is likely to change, as it becomes easier for non-medical persons to access and understand medical information and recommendations. It will just then come down to regulatory barriers. When will a computer be given a medical license? 20 years? 50 yrs? 5 yrs?
dontbenebbyalmost 3 years ago
It might not. They still focus on being gatekeepers rather than adjust to ubiquitious computing meaning research skills can make a PCP as good or better than some specialists (and conversely, specialists can be incredibly entitled as they follow a flowchart for every patient like it&#x27;s a tech support call to Comcast in 2002.)<p>Often what &quot;AI&quot; is doing is what a doctor with good active listening skills has, but until the field gets more diverse (and the ones who make it in actually use some of their humanities lessons rather than treat being an MD as a chance to act like a rude old white man) nothing substantial will change beyond more 1920s style civil unrest, which occured around the time antibiotics where discovered and germ theory became accepted.
mbrodersenalmost 3 years ago
The GP will not change at all. Most GP’s are basically glorified pill sales people, matching symptoms to pills or specialists, and optimising for the number of patients they see per hour. Not long term health outcomes of their patients. The <i>most</i> revolutionary change would actually be the recognition of your diet as one of <i>the</i> most important things to get right when it comes to your long term health. But most GP doesn’t get any training in Nutrition <i>and</i> the training they do get is usually wrong. Things are slowly improving but it will take a long time and it has nothing to do with tech.
pavivaalmost 3 years ago
Unlikely.<p>Diagnosis is based on imperfect data with very high noise-to-signal ratio, and with auditory (patient&#x27;s history), visual and tactile inputs. Treatment often need to be tailored for each patients unique needs, goals, and co-existing diseases.
评论 #31956402 未加载
cyanydeezalmost 3 years ago
I assume many will be downgraded to just above a professional nurse, essentially googling issues based of medical databases crossed by local results.<p>Also, rich people and politicians, will live longer as usual. Expect Elon news for another century!
jayy-lmaoalmost 3 years ago
At my work we&#x27;re building a system to train healthcare professionals.<p>Instead of using ML to diagnose, we are treating the student as the AI. They&#x27;re given chatbots which they must treat and diagnose. Fortunately for us clinical sessions usually follow a formula, and so make for a good case for chatbots. (We&#x27;re called SimConverse in case anyone is interested)
petraalmost 3 years ago
Technology for diagnosing rare cases has existed for some time(Isabel Healthcare).<p>Not in common use, and doctor&#x27;s role hasn&#x27;t changed.
zenbryoalmost 3 years ago
It&#x27;s probably not the actual diagnosis part that will get disrupted, but all the administration needed with booking of follow-ups, journal writing, tests etc.<p>AI&#x2F;ML might be used for targeted medicines, prevention or early detection which will free up time for doctors.
redmenalmost 3 years ago
Not much will change. Doctors are slow and stubborn and have red tape up their ass
EnKopVandalmost 3 years ago
I have some insight into this as I’ve worked a decade in the public sector of Denmark, and I don’t think the general role of doctors will change that much.<p>I don’t see ML have much, if any, impact on a doctors role in diagnosis. I know this is a little strange to hear to a lot of techies, but we once had IBMs Watson work on our data to see what IBM and Watson could come up with, and while the output wasn’t bad, it was sort of useless because we already had 50 years with of analytical models on virtually everything. So in essence what Watson did with our data, was to generate a lot of BI that was inferior to the BI we already had. Diagnosis is sort of the same story because what doctors do is basically to refer your symptoms directly with the medical lexicon and your history. ML is likely going to help collect the data and tie it together, to make diagnosis both better and faster, but you’re likely still going to have a doctor review the results, just like you would your “data scientists” on any other important ML data. Where ML will change things is in early detection, where your medical data from every source will be crossed and checked much better because that’s the sort of things ML is good at. So maybe you’re going in for a blood test for something completely unrelated to cancer, but because the tech has improved, it’ll also screen you for cancer and alert your doctor if your numbers are off.<p>Where we’ll see the biggest impact will be in areas that can be turned robotic. Things like the lab work on your blood tests, which is currently still a very manual process. Or in surgery where precision machinery will slowly take over a lot of the cutting. You’re likely still going to need surgeons to monitor the process, not so much the actual surgery but the planning and the recovery, because these things are impacted by so many real world factors that we may never get ML models that are good enough to handle them on their own.<p>It’s often in the places you may least expect it that IT makes the biggest difference. The biggest impact I saw in the medical system was automated medicine distribution and in wound cleaning. The medicine distribution “used” to be handled by nurses putting the pills for patients into boxes and then healthcare workers administering it the right time. The automated way was having the pharmacy distribute smart-dispensers that would alert citizens to take their medicines and then sort of “punch” the right pills into a tray when the patient clicked on it. I put “used” in “ because the automated smart system is more expensive than the old way, and this resulted in many places still opting for the old way, despite it being more error prone. The wound cleaning is an AR&#x2F;ML success story. Basically wounds can be really nasty, and contain nasty things that even the best nurses in our system won’t spot as well as ML. So what we did was hack a pair of Google glass to never send data to Google (I believe Google was very helpful in this process by the way) but instead feed images of the wound to ML recognition and then alert the nurse to areas in the wound where the nurse had missed a spot of nasty. Really awesome stuff.<p>In general I expect that medical, along with farming, tech will be some of the most interesting tech areas in the next few decades, but I don’t expect either to replace doctors or nurses. I expect to see it make doctors and nurses better at their jobs. It will free up some tasks, and change which doctor professions get the highest pay because a neurosurgeon won’t be the Hollywood rockstar, but really, they kind of aren’t outside of Hollywood anyway, at least no in Denmark.
u40as7almost 3 years ago
I&#x27;m not sure your comment about it being easy to overly diagnosis rare conditions captures the reality of practising medicine for anyone who&#x27;s been a clinician long enough. Part of the training is to think common first before rare, and to sense when there are peculiarities. Rarity stands out, so inexperienced clinicians&#x2F;medical students will seek this out in patients.<p>As paviva mentions diagnosis is based on imperfect data with a high noise-to-signal ratio. Which I think is actually a testament to human&#x27;s ability to navigate all of that and still be able to care and treat illness.<p>I think the trends in technology with healthcare will more likely be to support and supplement humans rather than taking them out of the equation. I do agree that there will probably be a shift in how we practice as in how much we need to retain as doctors. Doctors in the next 5-10 years will certainly need a much greater understanding how to critique ML used to make recommendations. I doubt clinicians will need to understand the inner depths of how an ML model is working at a code level though. There are already several guidance papers on how to evaluate ML models.<p>But clinical reasoning will still be a human endeavour in my opinion. The adjuncts to diagnosis is already happening in more visual concentrated specialities like radiology,pathoogy and ophthalmology, where ML algorithms I think have a good fit. No doubt this is where we will start to see more reliance on the ML models. But again, that uncertainty and ability to take an imperfect data set and make a decision with conscious and subconscious understanding will be aided by these models but not necessarily determined by them. To be able to capture all of the other inputs that are required for diagnostic reasoning will still escape ML inspired technology. Blood tests and imaging alone do not make a diagnosis, its the whole context from symptom to investigations together.<p>Another area of technology is the use of hand held devices for diagnostics, portable US for example. US is known to have better accuracy than chest X-rays for particular conditions. It&#x27;s not quite there yet in terms of the taking that on a ward round, but that feels like a more realistic proposition in the next 5-10 years.<p>I also expect that we will be looking far far more about patterns in this noise of data. Looking at 100,000&#x27;s of medical records to try to understand the patterns of disease we as humans just can&#x27;t perceive. Looking at predictive modelling for things like cancer. Cancer being a large bucket of atleast 200 types of diseases, most of them are rare and no one clinician has seen enough of them to really get predictive or understand the nuance of them to really diagnose with confidence. Additionally clinical trials are poor datasets for sample sizing and in application to real life scenarios that we end up having to rely on.<p>So being able to get through millions of notes and finding all these cases to make predictions seems to me to be a fruitful area of investigation.