Re:Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in brea...
by cratermoon on Thursday September 02, 2021 @03:33PM
(#28396332)
Blame the character limit on HN titles. How would you would have written it to fit in the limit?
Re:Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in brea...
by striking on Thursday September 02, 2021 @04:13PM
(#28396785)
The guidelines say you should use the title as-is, but my attempt might put the focus on the "and 100% were worse than 2 radiologists" part, to mitigate exactly the problem of "well let's use the 6% that actually work" comments that exist without the context.
Re:Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in brea...
by OJFord on Thursday September 02, 2021 @03:59PM
(#28396644)
Not GP, but I'd prefer '34' over '94%'. (Especially since the latter was parenthesised - I'd remove the parenthetical before anything else.)
(Or just 94%, and then have people say 'but N= only 36!'.)
Percentages for small numbers, in particular below 100, are just annoying and often designed to mislead. (Though I'm not suggesting that here, it's standard in medicine if not other fields.)
> Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists.