News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung cancer type, severity. Parent comment

Re:Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung ... by daveguy on Monday August 22, 2016 @03:58PM (#12338971)
Computers trounce* pathologists...

* by an un-quantified amount using only histology slides -- a limitation not enforced in actual medical practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung ... by cicero19 on Monday August 22, 2016 @06:01PM (#12339772)
yeah.. seriously.. what academic journal would accept that kind of statement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung ... by ChristianBundy on Monday August 22, 2016 @06:05PM (#12339792)
Nature, apparently.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung ... by leereeves on Monday August 22, 2016 @06:30PM (#12339914)
Nature Communications, which publishes a dozen articles every working day.

(2191 so far in 2016)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Computers do better than pathologists in predicting lung ... by delazeur on Tuesday August 23, 2016 @01:26AM (#12341593)
Nature and Science appear to accept a lot a "controversial" articles that don't really live up to their reputation for rigor.
[ Parent | on HN ]