• cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unfortunately AI models like this one often never make it to the clinic. The model could be impressive enough to identify 100% of cases that will develop breast cancer. However if it has a false positive rate of say 5% it’s use may actually create more harm than it intends to prevent.

    • Maven (famous)@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Another big thing to note, we recently had a different but VERY similar headline about finding typhoid early and was able to point it out more accurately than doctors could.

      But when they examined the AI to see what it was doing, it turns out that it was weighing the specs of the machine being used to do the scan… An older machine means the area was likely poorer and therefore more likely to have typhoid. The AI wasn’t pointing out if someone had Typhoid it was just telling you if they were in a rich area or not.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s actually really smart. But that info wasn’t given to doctors examining the scan, so it’s not a fair comparison. It’s a valid diagnostic technique to focus on the particular problems in the local area.

        “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras” (outside of Africa)

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not at all, in this case.

      A false positive of even 50% can mean telling the patient “they are at a higher risk of developing breast cancer and should get screened every 6 months instead of every year for the next 5 years”.

      Keep in mind that women have about a 12% chance of getting breast cancer at some point in their lives. During the highest risk years its a 2 percent chamce per year, so a machine with a 50% false positive for a 5 year prediction would still only be telling like 15% of women to be screened more often.