[timy2shoes]

> Imaging based diagnosis could read presence or absence of particular gene mutations from the images so that the genes can be silenced by the drugs.

>Imaging based diagnosis could also figure out whether a particular cancer precursor is going to develop into invasive cancer and do it better than the experts we have now (otherwise we wouldn't use the AI).

Where is the evidence for these claims, other than a VC hype sheet? Like real clinical trials. These claims also show a fundamental misunderstanding of what this data can tell us. Imaging data doesn't give you tumor genetic profiles. It can give you tumor phenotype, which is associated with specific mutations. To get the true genetic profile you need to do deep sequencing at tens of thousands of dollars per tumor, and even then you have the problem of tumor heterogeneity, which lets the cancer evade the treatment.

A major concern I have working in this space is that we're selling people on grand promises of far off possibilities rather than what we can actually deliver right now.

[ramraj07]

Just the latest iteration of people who don't know biology (used to be Physicists, now it's the AI guys) coming in to save all of us. Once in a while someone does make meaningful contributions, but in the end it's hard to say if the collective investment in attention and money have made it worthwhile or not.

[yread]

Histology slides absolutely can tell us a lot about molecular changes, see

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0462-y

Of course changes in the genotype that impact the phenotype enough to influence the disease also influence the morphology of the cells.

But this is area of active research so you can't expect phase 3 clinical trials. Yet.

EDIT: here is another more "perspective" paper how such tools could be used and integrated in current processes, from the same authors

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-020-01122-x