Slashdot Mirror
Computers Shown To Be Better Than Docs At Diagnosing, Prescribing Treatment
Lucas123 writes "Applying the same technology used for voice recognition and credit card fraud detection to medical treatments could cut healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes by almost 50%, according to new research. Scientists at Indiana University found that using patient data with machine-learning algorithms can drastically improve both the cost and quality of healthcare through simulation modeling.The artificial intelligence models used for diagnosing and treating patients obtained a 30% to 35% increase in positive patient outcomes, the research found. This is not the first time AI has been used to diagnose and suggest treatments. Last year, IBM announced that its Watson supercomputer would be used in evaluating evidence-based cancer treatment options for physicians, driving the decision-making process down to a matter of seconds."
An expected outcome. First machines become good and cheap at performing manual labor, then it's lowly qualified jobs such as sorting stuff or basic accounting.
In a few years, liberal professions will fall. Our salaries (I'm a doctor) have been diving as more and more people around the world can afford a career and achieve a good enough level to perform as a doctor or an engineer.
Creative and risk-taking careers will resist for a longer time.
We can hope for a future of working machines and humans enjoying themselves. The other option will be cheap-ass humans with no way of earning a living whatsoever.
The problem is not in the decision making process, but in the fact finding process. THIS is the part computers and software are still very, very poor at.
The problem with doctors is their ego. Being a nurse for quite some time Ive seen countless doctors come through the hospital that do not treat a patient properly, ignore patient complaints, dont treat problems aggresively enough, are too passive, and so on and the vast majority of them refuse to do otherwise because of their ego. They are doctors, no one should question them and they hate it when you do and when you do they dig their heels in and dont budge. Doctors are also human so they get tired of their job, they get lazy, they stop caring after awhile, they worry more about what they will do later than the problem at hand, they stay up too late.
Ive also seen countless times people who swear by these doctors and will accuse of them of fault simply because the doctor has been nice to them. A doctor who is friendly can do no wrong in a patients eyes. Or a patient has some common problem that even a moron could treat, then when the doctor fixes them suddenly they become godlike.
Personally I would trust the diagnosis of a machine that has more information programmed into it than a thousand doctors do collectively from allover the world.
A machine can be a doctor because thats how doctors are trained, they are trained to be machines. They treat the problem, they do not treat the person. Treating the person is a nurses job. And treating the problem is simply nothing more than deduction. If patient has multiple problems then you take those numbers and it will lead you to the correct answer. Thats all being a doctor is, you look at the signs and symptoms, then you add them alltogether and you get the answer as to what the cause is. Its all a forumla and nothing more, there is no great mystery to it.
Apart from doctors who will understandably not want to be rendered obsolete (and they won't be -- the computer can only prescribe a treatment, not administer it!), the main objection that would be raised to this is "What if the computer makes a mistake?" For some reason, people are really bad at understanding that even though the computer might make a mistake, it will make mistakes at a lower rate than a human. This is the same problem with computer-driven automobiles. Yes, the computer might screw something up and kill somebody, but this should happen at a much lower rate than caused by human drivers -- however, because the rate isn't EXACTLY ZERO it is seen as completely unacceptable, even though this is an irrational position to maintain.
... is that the computer doesn't have, literally, hands-on experience.
For example... you have stomach pain. Okay. Where? Does this hurt? Does it hurt if I poke this? Do you have a fever? How high? ("Oh, I don't know, maybe XX" ...)...
In other words, you still need someone who *knows* what to do to help diagnose simply to *get* the information. You need someone trained to know where to poke, where to tap, where to see if something hurts. And then, of course, to try to wheedle the real information out rather than the confusing answers patients (note that I am not a doctor, I am a patient) give. :)
As a diagnostic tool, I think it would be a huge benefit. An individual simply can't keep up to date on everything, don't know everything, and can't research everything. Having a diagnostic tool that *does* do all that would be a huge benefit. There would be options and diagnoses that perhaps the doctor had not thought about. Additionally, the diagnostic tool - I hope! - would not just say "Oh, it's this" but would perhaps say "Well, it could be this, and you need to find out this information first ... or it could be this, and for that you need to do these tests..."
The idea that a patient, combined with a non-trained non-doctor, can somehow come up with all the right answers/information and a machine can simply diagnose it on the spot seems like a very simplistic view. Perhaps that works with colds, the flu, or warts... but for more complex things... it seems diagnoses tend to work on a "it could be this; let's do more specific tests to find out if it is" type of investigation.
Why haven't these things been combined?
Who could possibly be opposed to cheap, automated healthcare?