[arcticbull]

I'd push back on the 6% of AI systems being better than a radiologist and calling that a success, but you are right in the meta.

It's fair to say that yes, AI systems aren't good enough yet. On the other hand, it's pretty clear some technological approach will outperform a radiologist at pattern recognition at some point in the future - whether that's "AI" or "if statements" or some third option.

It's just a matter of time.

[thethimble]

Another interesting subtlety is that there are only a finite amount of radiologists and they’re generally concentrated in wealthy countries/areas.

AI based analysis - whether it’s better than a human radiologist or not - is far more scalable and cost effective. Even if used as a screening mechanism to be escalated to a human radiologist, this approach will be very helpful to much of the world.

[1024core]

> I'd push back on the 6% of AI systems being better than a radiologist and calling that a success,

How much time does it take to train a radiologist to that level of performance?

How much time does it take to clone that ML model?

[arcticbull]

I just meant that it's not clear from this that the 6% are 'overall better' just that the 94% are 'overall worse.' More data is needed, but it does appear that progress is being made, and I'm excited by that.

After all, no AI beat two radiologists.

[netcan]

It depends on context.

Here, the context appears to be a somewhat arbitrary selection of published algorithms. All they've really determined is that at least 94% are not ready to replace radiologists.

That's pretty much confirmation of the default assumption. If they were, they'd all be trying to get these into hospitals, and they're not.