|
|
|
|
|
|
by mchusma
841 days ago
|
|
|
If I understand the article, it’s that if you keep everything the same and simply replace ai for human doctors, then you won’t have better outcomes. Basically, you sometimes need multiple diagnostics and actually need to get scans and medical imagery to detect issues. These are all directly improved by AI. AI should make diagnosis cheaper and more effective, with less bias. MRIs should cost 1/10th as much as we increase the throughput of machines with AI (as several people are working on) and reduce the need for expensive human labor. It’s the lowering of cost that feels like the revolution in healthcare. AI should enable nearly free ways of mining noisy signals in the body could catch issues. Smart toilets, mirrors, scans, etc. all help. |
|
|
I work in the emergency department of a busy hospital. MRIs are pretty labor intensive to perform and take 15m to an hour. We are not going to get to a point where we are regularly scanning people with MRIs without clear symptoms of CVA etc. They require techs to run, you aren't going to remove much "expensive human labor" other than making initial radiology reads faster. The article makes the distinction that someone needs to decide to order those time-consuming, expensive scans, and that is where the point of failure is right now, in that we sometimes write patients off as delusional. AI can't help in situations where we have no data.