Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by r-zip on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @11:58AM
(#37238043)
Even with an accuracy score, it’s meaningless. Accuracy isn’t the right metric.
Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by glompers on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @01:19PM
(#37239202)
If you like, please mention more; I at least am interested to hear
Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by malfist on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @01:36PM
(#37239466)
Consider it this way.
If your AI algo scanned the general population and it said 100% of the time, "no risk of esophageal cancer" It'd still be 99.5% accurate.
It's highly accurate. And useless.
To get a good idea of how useful it is, you need to know it's false negative rate and false positive rate as well as it's accuracy.
Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by jncfhnb on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @11:58AM
(#37238046)
Accuracy is well understood to be a terrible, misleading metric and any reputable report would strive to avoid emphasizing its importance.
For those curious their test set AUC appears to be 77.
Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by monero-xmr on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @12:05PM
(#37238158)
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but if you could have a test that doesn’t say anything if it isn’t sure, but if it is sure with very high confidence gives you a true positive, that has a lot of value.
Re:AI predicts certain esophageal and stomach cancers three ...
by ShroudedNight on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @01:41PM
(#37239524)
As an aside, this was also the only strategy that seemed to scale in intrusion detection.
If a program is able to predict this once or twice it's not a miracle. If it's able to do so with 60% I'd raise some eyebrows. But I'd say it's only a turning point when it's able to beat false positive rates of human doctors. Without an accuracy score, this news is absolutely meaningless.