THIS is the AI we need.
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.
canwants toFTFY
That’s particularly useful for pancreatic cancer, if it’s accurate, reliable, cost effective, and practical in the real world.
deleted by creator
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.
This comment should be deleted soon
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.
They selected the pathology that’s the topic of the post to support their on-topic argument. Be better, indeed.
Really wish people could be better collaborators instead of just being jerks. Kills any value in the conversation.
Stop being a bad person, please.
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.
deleted by creator
Saw your edit. I’m not a “home-bound tech worker” and I think you’re projecting. What’re your medical qualifications?
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)
You used the AI acronym in the same way, so I’m confused by your arrogant sounding statement
Did I though? Are they using a model with any kind of abstraction layer that actually understands relationships between objects?
Yes and yes.
These are questions that you wouldn’t have to ask if you didn’t smugly decide that you didn’t need to read before contributing your opinion.
If you can’t be arsed to read the article, here’s the peer reviewed paper in the British Medical Journal: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4433
AI is different from LLM, you disingenuous fuck.
Did it get its knickers in a twist?
Hey weirdo why did you attack someone out of nowhere?
Fuck off if you can’t be an adult and hold your big AI feelings
Learn to troll, grandpa.
Learn to hold your big feelings, especially in public. This isn’t a troll, it’s life advice
