[TaupeRanger]

Do you have any papers published to support such a strong claim (one that directly contradicts the sentiment of almost every single oncologist and pharmacologist I know that isn't trying to generate profits for a biotech company)?

[ganstyles]

edit: I posted that I have internal data, but also realized I said a little bit too much about the process. The below point someone is making is a totally fair one. Editing this though for Reasons while trying to keep the part of the comment that led to the below dismissal, and also to clarify my definition of "internal data" to be more expansive than "internal testing on datasets" which is what I realize it might sound like.

[TaupeRanger]

That's not how this works. The only way to show an actual reduction in all cause mortality as the result of an intervention, treatment, or screening process is through a randomized controlled clinical trial. If none have been performed, you don't have evidence that lives have been saved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[hadsed]

i think focusing entirely on one type of evidence is a little unimaginative. if these guys have data on doctors performing some task with and without their tool, they're in a good place to measure the difference. they can take that all the way to the bank, and to me that would contribute to what id call evidence.

[rscho]

Until they have to really show that it's working in day-to-day practice. Where it most likely won't, unfortunately.

[ganstyles]

Totally fair. It is a very, very hard field to make progress in. I would also take anything I say with a grain of salt, I'm not trying to convince you, just to bring an additional data point to the thought that these techniques aren't very useful or impactful.

[jhowell]

Maybe the GP threw the wrong buzzword and meant AI instead of ML.