I'm not a science/medical person ,far removed in fact ....I can see how the % game works but with lesser known disease/cancers ?
No, it's just pattern recognition which is pretty much what I do all day. Picking up things on images that shouldn't be there. I will still have a job because the stuff out there is nowhere near able to distinguish what is relevant or not and unable to put the findings together in the context of the patients medical history and make a diagnosis. It will have more use in say 3rd world countries there are limited Radiologist resources, in which case the software will just list everything that looks abnormal
Most cancers even the most rare, look pretty much the same on imaging, basically a mass that shouldn't be there, doesn't make a diff how rare. Final diagnosis is still made by the pathologist after biopsy or excision
Got it, thanks! BUT isn’t it true that the computer can only consider all the millions of ABC’s that it has PREVIOUSLY seen; using the Newton example, how would a computer postulate ‘gravity’ when the concept didn’t exist at that point?
Out Out of my depth but i do so my enjoy what you medical/science people (Greg, Patrick, Morrettii and Kerrari ) put on this thread .................Ta.
That's where the "neural network" bit comes in, the software reaches conclusions beyond the data it starts with, then builds on it to derive further conclusions. A good example is below-ground water undermining railway ballast. Not visible to the human eye, not picked up by conventional measurement diagnostics, but predicted by the AI.
