Slashdot Mirror
AI Can Predict When Patients Will Die From Heart Failure 'With 80% Accuracy' (ibtimes.co.uk)
New submitter drunkdrone quotes a report from International Business Times: Scientists say they have developed an artificial intelligence (AI) program that is capable of predicting when patients with a serious heart disorder will die with an 80% accuracy rate. Researchers from the MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences (LMS) believe the software will allow doctors to better treat patients with pulmonary hypertension by determining how aggressive their treatment needs to be. The researchers' program assessed the outlook of 250 patients based on blood test results and MRI scans of their hearts. It then used the data to create a virtual 3D heart of each patient which, combined with the health records of "hundreds" of previous patients, allowed it to learn which characteristics indicated fatal heart failure within five years. The LMS scientists claim that the software was able to accurately predict patients who would still be alive after a year around 80% of the time. The computer was able to analyze patients "in seconds," promising to dramatically reduce the time it takes doctors to identify the most at-risk individuals and ensure they "give the right treatment to the right patients, at the right time." Dr Declan O'Regan, one the lead researchers from LMS, said: "This is the first time computers have interpreted heart scans to accurately predict how long patients will live. It could transform the way doctors treat heart patients. The researchers now hope to field-test the technology in hospitals in London in order to verify the data obtained from their trials, which have been published in the medical journal Radiology.
No. It's just a fucking program. All of these "AI" claims are just programs. AI doesn't exist. Just stop with the AI already, the word has lost all meaning.
You can get to 99.9% accuracy, but you need the autonomous auto-loading shotgun mod...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
the software was able to accurately predict patients who would still be alive after a year around 80% of the time
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Start a better database on doctors and all their medical procedures.
Find good pathologists to report on every case. Link all past complex work with a pathologist's reports over years.
Who ordered what procedures? What did a specialist do? What did an average doctor on duty do?
Over time the really good professionals who have the skills to save lives will get listed and the average doctors who do things wrong will really stand out.
Work out who your best specialist are, support them and get them working with the next generation of experts.
No new AI needed. Just track all your doctors and have pathologist's report on every interesting case.
Why some doctors just cant get the same average results as a specialist on duty is a question that can be discovered by looking at results.
If a hospital wants good results, stop funding average doctors and having average doctors try to deal with the same very sick people every shift.
Move the average doctors to other areas of medicine and ensure only the best staff get supported.
How to stop the flow of very average doctors into the wider medial profession? Stop accepting very average students into universities to study medicine. Make sure every doctor sits the same national exams and passes well.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The only reason the term doesn't have any meaning is because everyone's definition of "intelligence" is different in the first place. If you can define an unambiguous metric for intelligence, then it becomes pretty obvious what AI has to be: intelligence that is artificial, rather than natural.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The point, as in TFA, is to suggest which patients should receive more intensive treatment. If there is a higher chance a patient is going to die, you would be more willing to apply riskier treatments with more potential to cause harmful side effects. If the chances are low, you then are more careful with treatments, because sometimes the treatments can do more damage if there is too low of a risk from the actual condition.
I can remember when /. attracted some of the best informed and intelligent people you could find anywhere on the Internet. Now, all we have are members who inform us that we do not need computers, and their ability to find correlations in huge data sets. All we need is the intuition of smart people.
Look back at the early proposed tests for artificial intelligence. When supervised deep learning systems can use the immense processing capabilities of modern computers, to not only match, but to exceed the capabilities of humans in a wide range of problem spaces, it is appropriate to describe the result as "artificial intelligence". We do not mean literally that we have an intelligent bunch of integrated circuits and harddrives. But, the overall system can produce results that we would until recently have considered only achievable by human experts. Indeed, our AIs, in many situations, exceed the capabilities of the best human minds.
I am used to the idea of the general public feeling threatened by the capabilities of modern technology. I just wish sites supposedly intended for intelligent, scientifically-informed individuals could be exempted from such lack of reason.
This has always weirded me out as an argument. Intelligence is simply information processing in physical systems. What humans do when they make intelligent decisions is take in data from the environment and process it to make predictions. So when a doctor looks at the same data as the machine and makes a conclusion about treatment, he is making an intelligent decision, but when the machine does the same it's not intelligence it's 'just a program'? When a human being operates a motor vehicle and adapts his/her behavior to react to oncoming traffic he/she is using intelligence but when a machine does it it's 'just a program'? What?
This whole approach to me reeks to substance dualism; the human brain is a computer, a very advanced one at that, but it's just a computer. there is no 'soul' that somehow makes the human brain the only thing that's capable of intelligent operations. Right now brains are still able to cross-reference data better than computers, making humans as a whole more intelligent than computers but we're already at a point in which computer programs are able to take in data and adapt their behavior to meet a goal, whether it's driving a car or anything else, with better results than your standard humans, but somehow the platform that the program is being run on determines which of these 2 actions is categorized as 'intelligent'. This is nonsensical.
Intelligence is a scale, not a binary thing. The confusion about AI these days is people read 'AI' and they immediately equate that to either 'human level intelligence' and/or 'consciousness', neither of which are required for a system to be intelligent. A dog is more intelligent than a rat, a monkey is more intelligent than a dog, a human is more intelligent than a monkey and so far overall humans are also more intelligent than computers, but it doesn't mean that computers don't have a level of intelligence already, even though you cannot (yet) have a discussion/debate with the computer.
Imagine a few decades into the future wherein these systems are able to recognize speech so that a physician is able to consult with it during an operation. Or when they get to the point that the computers themselves are able to perform autonomous surgeries on people and react to complications on the fly. This is the direction we're headed to and getting there does not require the computers to become self-aware.
You can call it 'just a program' all you want, but using that definition the years of training and practice going on in the surgeon's head as he's trying to figure out the best way to cut the tumor out without causing a hemorrhage is also 'just a program'. The platform on which the program is being run may be wetware or hardware but it does not affect the intelligence of the program.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Funny thing - she didn't bother telling me what I might accomplish if I start eating right, or exercising more, or even if I quit smoking - in fact, she seemed rather dubious that it would have any real effect at all (except the smoking part, for which she was happy to suggest several types of help if I wanted it). She didn't even tell me what my odds would be if I did start spending money on these drugs. I'm sure that insurance will pick up almost all of the cost - and I'm also sure that some pharmaceutical company somewhere would make a fair chunk of change off me for the rest of my unnatural life, sort of an annuity for big pharma. Problem is, I couldn't be sure I'd always be able to afford the drugs, and I'm told "once you start, you can't stop".
Yeah. I think I'd rather die living my life than clutching for more days.
This is called the AI effect.
Quoting the article, "as soon as AI successfully solves a problem, the problem is no longer a part of AI."
This is a common problem with most AI announcements. Is 80% accurate better than a simple statistical model? Often not. Does it scale up from a small sample size? Remember the recent face recognition thing that managed with only a hundred or so pixels? Sounded impressive, until you realise that the training set and the testing set were the same and that they only included around 1,000 faces, so simple information theory tells you that you only need 10 bits of information to identify each one and 800 bits doesn't sound quite so impressive.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, and we already have that. There are people who die every day waiting for a transplant organ. There's a limited amount available so they must be rationed and someone (or a panel of people most likely) has to determine where the limited supply will do the most good. That means skipping the older man in his 70s in favor of a young person with kids or rejecting the person that drank a liver into oblivion in favor of another person. If there's enough livers to go around, those other patients can certainly get treatment.
Get a big disaster and an influx of too many patients at one time and medical staff is going to have to start prioritizing and some people that might otherwise live or going to die because there's a finite amount of doctors and time they can devote. It might be possible to transport some patients to other hospitals, but there's only a limited number of vehicles capable of doing that. Give me a computer system that can make accurate predictions and judgements over a doctor who can only try their best. If the computer system can keep more people alive because it can make those kinds of tough decisions better than a human, you'd be foolish not to use it.
So are you a health care professional then? Because if you're not, you'd probably better get comfortable with rationing or your so-called "death panels" because otherwise you're not doing anything to help the situation from what I can see.
This whole approach to me reeks to substance dualism; the human brain is a computer, a very advanced one at that, but it's just a computer. there is no 'soul' that somehow makes the human brain the only thing that's capable of intelligent operations.
Start here...https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
Tat Tvam Asi
So you're OK with death panels and health care rationing.
Just to add to what alvinrod said. We also have them due to economic disparities. Those who choose to be poor (by being lazy and not working 36 hours a day, or stupidly choosing to be born to poor parents) get significantly worse health care. Thus we have self-selection of health care, which is rationing in other words.
Only I can judge you.