Reply to post: Depends what you want to call AI

Don't believe the hype: Today's AI unlikely to best actual doctors at diagnosing patients from medical scans

Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

Depends what you want to call AI

Recently, AI has been associated with deep networks, and little else, whereas the name used to cover far more. I have been doing research into medical image processing, and in that area many new useful tools have been developed that have certainly undergone clinical trials. Very many segmentation tools, image enhancement filters, and visualization methods contain methods from statistical pattern recognition, neural networks, support vector machines, learning vector quantization, etc. Many of these are very good at finding needles in haystacks, or allowing the doctor to zoom in on suspect regions in huge 3D scans or pathology specimens (often Gpixel order of magnitude). These methods have proven their worth in allowing a doctor to make decisions more effectively. They should not, and never were intended to replace a doctor.

Personally, I much prefer developing tools that can explain WHY they think a certain classification has been made (e,g, benign/malignant) and how sure they are of their decision. Otherwise, doctors (and I myself) will view these methods with deep suspicion.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020