Re:The A.I. Radiologist Will Not Be with You Soon
by ceejayoz on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @11:12AM
(#43985525)
This is definitely a thing.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/11/1714096...
I'm skeptical to the claim that AI isn't prone to this sort of error, though. AI loves the easy answer.
Re:The A.I. Radiologist Will Not Be with You Soon
by the_sleaze_ on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @11:50AM
(#43985972)
AI is overloaded. An LLM loves the easy answer, but that's not what is underlying an image classification model.
Re:The A.I. Radiologist Will Not Be with You Soon
by alabastervlog on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @11:18AM
(#43985602)
> I have made a mistake radiologists call 'satisfaction of search'.
Ah, now I have a name for it.
When I've chased a bug and fixed a problem I found that would cause the observed problem behavior, but haven't yet proven the behavior is corrected, I'm always careful to specify that "I fixed a problem, but I don't know if I fixed the problem". Seems similar: found and fixed a bug that could explain the issue, but that doesn't mean there's not another one that, independently, would also cause the same observed problem.
For example, let's say I'm looking at a chest x-ray. There is a pneumonia at the left lung base and I am clever enough to notice it. 'Aha', I think, congratulating myself at making the diagnosis and figuring out why the patient is short of breath.
But, in this example, I stop looking closely at the X-ray after noticing the pneumonia, so I miss a pneumothorax at the right lung apex.
I have made a mistake radiologists call 'satisfaction of search'.
My 'search' for the patient's problem was 'satisfied' by finding the pneumonia, and because I am human and therefore fundamentally flawed, I stopped looking for a second clinically relevant diagnosis.
An AI module that detects a pneumothorax is not prone to this type of error. So it sees something I did not. But it doesn't see something that I can't see. I just didn't look.