AI tool can diagnose patients 4 times more accurately than human doctors

[Jazzy1]

Would you trust an AI tool to diagnose you?

 

[hawkdon]

NO!?

 

[CallMeKate]

That would be a loud NO for me, too. AI has provided some shockingly inaccurate results when I've used it for regular research that I'm sure not about to use it for my health.

 

[DebraMae]

Yes, at least I would try it in addition to going to my regular doctor.

 

[hollydolly]

Would you trust an AI tool to diagnose you?

I think they already are because my doctors never look up from their computers... or laptops...

 

[Aunt Bea]

I would definitely take AI’s findings into consideration.

It probably does as good a job as I do using WebMD.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

Yes I would.

 

[JBR]

For me, the first thing that comes to mind is that general practitioners (or what, where I live, are called "family doctors") are not specialists. Nearly four years ago, when I had an early-stage possible carcinoma in my neck & throat, my doctor immediately referred me to a throat specialist. The specialist actually provided a very accurate diagnosis within about 10 minutes, with no reference to a computer.

Then he sent a fluid biopsy, which he had peered at with his microscope in the exam room (as I watched the process) off to a lab. In a day or two his analysis was confirmed. From there, I was immediately referred to treatment. I gained some greater respect for medical specialists.

 

[That Lady in PA]

AI is already in play in hospitals across the USA.
You just don't know it.

It is making significant inroads with telehealth too.
Role of Artificial Intelligence within the Telehealth Domain: Official 2019 Yearbook Contribution by the members of IMIA Telehealth Working Group - PMC

Which is good, I guess, for when the rural hospitals close.

 

[Disgustedman]

Well, this is simply another tool that clinics use. I had my urine tested. I then got about 8 reports regarding tests done on a machine in less than 25 seconds.

For serious stuff, there's still the old fashioned way that has worked before, just time consuming and for patients, nerve wracking.

 

[JBR]

Well, this is simply another tool that clinics use. I had my urine tested. I then got about 8 reports regarding tests done on a machine in less than 25 seconds.

For serious stuff, there's still the old fashioned way that has worked before, just time consuming and for patients, nerve wracking.

In my case, which I mentioned, I was sitting in the exam chair for under 15 minutes. The doctor did a visual exam of my throat, manipulating my tongue with two tongue-depressor sticks, then an exam using a fibre optic tube connected into a computer screen. After that (4 or 5 minutes), a fluid biopsy from my neck, with some fluid placed on a microscope slide.

And he said he was "95% certain" what the issue was but, as routine, he'd send the remainder of the fluid to a lab. So it was all real quick, and he was confident to offer a favorable, encouraging prognosis... before the fluid went to the lab. A case of experience & good judgment.

 

[MoBeans]

Microsoft is in the AI business. Grain of salt and all that.

 

[Jules]

If I had a medical report that I didn’t understand, I’d feed it into AI after I‘d stripped it of all identifying info. It would be considered a second opinion. Again, it would be taken with a grain of salt.