Re: So it's wrong 6% of the time
"Whey are we expected to accept crap reliability rates when something is described as "AI"?"
Because we accept that kind of rate when someone is described as a consultant ophthalmologist as well.
The overwhelming majority of the paper deals with the comparative performance of the model, which is markedly more complex than the 6% figure quoted in the headline. For example in urgent care decisions the rate falls to well below 1%, while when presented with scans from a machine the model had never seen before the performance initially collapsed.
The other aspect glossed over is that this isn't a binary output. The model produces a probability matrix over both its suspected diagnoses and recommended next action. Organisations will be able to set decision boundaries at the appropriate confidence levels, in line with their risk appetites, to account for the inaccuracies in the model.
There are millions of these scans performed worldwide every year, each one needing to be reviewed in detail by a skilled clinician. This is a technique that promises to perform just as well as that skilled clinician, allowing us to triage and prioritise our responses. The savings and the potential improvements in care, training and diagnosis are huge.