189
AI finds signs of pancreatic cancer before tumors develop (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 5 months ago (32 children)

That's particularly useful for pancreatic cancer, if it's accurate, reliable, cost effective, and practical in the real world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    seems they need scans from different patients, like alot of them to make it look accurate. i wonder how well it will do with 1 scan only, because a biopsy after 1 scan/ or another scam is unneccesary waste and expensive it detects one and finds nothing, biopsis are not pleasant. definitely on the cost and reliability, since it needs more than 1 scan, it likely would cost alot.

    another point in the article, is the "abnormal cells hiding the actual cancer cells" likely could be abnormal fibroblasts, which are found in other cancer cells that feed the cancer itself(by giving up its neutrients"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Hey lookie here, the statistical pattern matching algorithm has some uses that could help society maybe possibly. Sure beats replacing artists or building inefficient chat bots that give people the Eliza effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    False positives are at least as dangerous as false negatives and AI solutions like this have massive problems with over diagnosing.

    Absolutely 100% wrong.

    In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, a false positive means a follow-up scan. A false negative means death, the 5-year survival is near zero once it's caught late, but exceeds 80% when caught early.

    In the study, the radiologists' lower false positive rate is achieved by missing 78% of cancers. That's not a safer trade-off, it's just a different way to fail. "Overdiagnosis" also requires a disease that might not have harmed the patient, PDA doesn't have a harmless form. Every missed case is a lost life while every false positive is an extra doctor's appointment.

    This system detects twice as many cancers and was flagging them, on average, 675 days (nearly 2 years!) before clinical detection.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    If I'm wrong, then feel free to support your position with evidence or an argument showing that my statement was specious.

    I linked the, peer-reviewed, paper which contains the data that supports my statements on the topic.

    You've made two conclusory statements and immediately resorted to insulting comments when challenged.

    There is not a single aggressive pancreatic cancer where a false negative is more dangerous than a false positive.

    Percutaneous biopsy has a mortality rate of approximately 0.2% even relatively non-malignant pancreatic cancers (say Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm) have 10-year survival rates in adults of around 88% and that number is from cases which received surgical intervention and chemotherapy something that would not happen with a false negative.

    So even in the worst case, the false negative multiple times more deadly. A false positives' most likely outcome is pancreatitis from the biopsy procedure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -53 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    In other words: not useful at all. (Didn't read the article because it already misuses the AI acronym in the title, indicating it was written by some idiot with nothing to say)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Article actually describes it well enough, how scientists trained a model on data from CT scans of patients who were treated for other conditions some time before being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -33 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    In my first sentence, I was referring to the combination of adjectives in the question by previous commentor. No one in today's health care systems is gonna pay preemptive screenings for saving peasant lives like yours or mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    There are healthcare systems in the world other than the one in the usa

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    If course you do - if the cost of treating the patient down the line is going to cost you more. Public health systems have a vested interest in healthier citizens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Problem is they are probably from the US which doesn't really have a public healthcare system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Even in the US with private health insurance, those providers will pay for screenings that can save costs by catching something early. Sometimes that might be legally mandated, other times it’s based on cost/benefit. It all varies from plan to plan, but the more common a disease is the more likely they’ll pay for at least a low-cost initial screening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The thing is providers of care like to make a profit though, and profit = money = influence on healthcare policies. Healthcare policies are not made solely with cost efficiency in mind, but rather to redistribute wealth from insurance payers to those who provide services. If that means a couple ten thousand of us peasants die a preventable death, then that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You used the AI acronym in the same way, so I'm confused by your arrogant sounding statement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Did I though? Are they using a model with any kind of abstraction layer that actually understands relationships between objects?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    AI is different from LLM, you disingenuous fuck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Hey weirdo why did you attack someone out of nowhere?

    Fuck off if you can’t be an adult and hold your big AI feelings

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •