[rvz]

Exactly this. This is where I see AI possibly going: To be a complimentary tool or second pair of eyes to speed up the work for the professionals rather than replacing them. I also see this research as a very positive step forward for using AI for good and especially bringing highly accurate results that can used as a aid for health professionals.

However, given that this research used a deep learning (DL) based AI system in the medical industry, there are still questions around this AI system explaining itself and its internal decision process for the sake of transparency, which will almost be ignored in other news reporting sites and will focus only on the accuracy. DL-based AI systems will still be a concern towards both patients and clinicians and I would expect this to be a focus point in the future, despite the welcoming results which is still very interesting anyways.

Other than the transparency issues behind the AI system, I'd say this is a great start into the new decade for AI.

[xarope]

Agreed. The ability of the someone/AI to explain their decision making process, is critical in determining whether such a decision has been adequately thought out or not. If a PhD must go through a viva, surely it is also incumbent on anybody pushing "AI" to also be able to "survive" such a viva. Otherwise, we might as well just go back to the days of reading entrails, flipping coins, etc. [edit: typo on viva]

[sanxiyn]

Note that the system does produce localization. "In addition to producing a classification decision for the entire case, the AI system was designed to highlight specific areas of suspicion for malignancy."