| > just a matter of time before someone gets severe complications for whatever outcome your program If you are going to indirectly call someone out for publishing code which you deem severely detrimental to human health, you better back your stuff up. > You have a false negative? Big problem How does one get a false negative from multi-class probabilities? There aren't any... > you just gave someone worse treatment options (if lucky) or led to someone being diagnosed too late and potentially getting metastasized breast cancer. Those bone metastases are quite painful, you know. An image is already checked by a doctor, before given to the patient. A "False negative" then, is simply the doctor saying they are OK, and the ML confirming this, while both missing cancer. If doctor said, not OK, then no patient will take an OK from a website and be diagnosed too late. The last sentence is needlessly spiteful. I hope I misunderstood the intent of it. > False positives are even worse, because they are far far far more likely to happen in practice. [...] I speak from experience that this WILL lead to the patient going to the doctor, and the doctor, seeing these very strong words, might want to take a biopsy to confirm the malignancy. If doctor says OK, but my automated second opinion says not OK, then I go back to the doctor, and the doctor will either sooth my worries, explaining why the patch is benign. This is the desired outcome for my health. Or the doctor will second-guess their diagnosis, and perform, with my permission, more thorough tests. If tests come back OK, this will sooth my worries and the doctor's worries, and all will be fine. If tests come back not OK, then the application helped save my life. There is zero reason to believe this app will bamboozle doctors into spending 1000s of dollars over nothing. > If the tool is not for diagnostical purposes, it's not doing a whole lot in fighting cancer as it is just a play thing then. This does not follow. There is a significant contribution with this app for fighting and raising awareness of cancer. Low-expertise hospitals use it as a diagnostics aid. People reported getting a second opinion from this app, returning to the hospital, and finding cancer early. > At the moment, it's more like hindering cancer by taking resources from people who need them and giving them to people who don't need them. Yes, it really seems you are deeming this app both severely dangerous and hindering cancer research. Without any solid (ML) reasoning and plenty of non-sequiturs. I'd suggest that even if you continue to hold such views, that you apologize to a fellow researcher. Source: citizen scientist who open-sourced data analysis tools with disclaimers, now widely used for cancer screening, precision medicine, and improving chemo-therapy. |