[mcbrit]

Line: The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28·4% (226 of 795) before to 22·4% (145 of 648) after exposure to AI

Supprt: Statistically speaking, on average, for each 1% increase in ADR, there is a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC. (colorectal cancer)

My objection is all the decimal points without error bars. Freshman physics majors are beat on for not including reasonable error estimates during labs, which massively overstates how certain they should be; sophomores and juniors are beat on for propogating errors in dumb ways that massively understates how certain they should be.

This article is up strolls rando doctor (granted: with more certs than I will ever have) with a bunch of decimal points. One decimal point, but that still looks dumb to me. What is the precision of your measuring device? Do you have a model for your measuring device? Are you quite sure that your study, given error bars, which you don't even acknowledge the existence of, don't cancel out the study?

[dweinus]

Either way, to be clear: the 28.4% -> 22.4% is human performance vs human performance (before and after "exposure to AI"). There are no numbers provided on accuracy with the use of AI.