[famouswaffles]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10425828/

Use of GPT-4 to Analyze Medical Records of Patients With Extensive Investigations and Delayed Diagnosis

"Six patients 65 years or older (2 women and 4 men) were included in the analysis. The accuracy of the primary diagnoses made by GPT-4, clinicians, and Isabel DDx Companion was 4 of 6 patients (66.7%), 2 of 6 patients (33.3%), and 0 patients, respectively. If including differential diagnoses, the accuracy was 5 of 6 (83.3%) for GPT-4, 3 of 6 (50.0%) for clinicians, and 2 of 6 (33.3%) for Isabel DDx Companion"

[nullindividual]

That's great the bot can tell you that you have cancer, congrats. It isn't human, can't comfort the cancer patient, can't actually _help_ the cancer patient in any meaningful way to solve their issue.

AI is not intelligence. It lacks empathy. It lacks just about everything a doctor does except regurgitate diagnosis based on data -- data gathered by doctors.

[gumballindie]

Ah yes, a study made on six patients. Very science, fits the pattern.

But this alone invalidates the paper:

“AI relies on clinical imaging.1 In low-income countries, where specialist care may be lacking”

Have they been to a british hospital recently? Specialist care scarcity is fast approaching that of low income countries. The only option left is the poor man’s choice - chatbots.

[famouswaffles]

>Ah yes, a study made on six patients. Very science, fits the pattern.

Still a highly non trivial result.

>But this alone invalidates the paper:

“AI relies on clinical imaging.1 In low-income countries, where specialist care may be lacking”

How does that invalidate the paper ?