[louden]

It would be nice to see the sensitivity and specificity of the technique and for humans. False positives and false negatives are not equal in medicine, so we should report in such a way that people can evaluate them.

In this type of cancer, a lower specificity is an acceptable trade off for a very high sensitivity.

[yil8]

There was indeed a professional pathologist involved in the Camelyon 16 Challenge, where s/he spent 30 hours reviewing 130 slides, and ended up 72.4% sensitivity with 0 false positives. Our algorithm achieves ~91% sensitive at 8 false positives per slides, seems a win according to your "a lower specificity is an acceptable trade off for a very high sensitivity."