Slashdot Mirror
IBM Watson Reportedly Recommended Cancer Treatments That Were 'Unsafe and Incorrect'
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Internal company documents from IBM show that medical experts working with the company's Watson supercomputer found "multiple examples of unsafe and incorrect treatment recommendations" when using the software, according to a report from Stat News. According to Stat, those documents provided strong criticism of the Watson for Oncology system, and stated that the "often inaccurate" suggestions made by the product bring up "serious questions about the process for building content and the underlying technology." One example in the documents is the case of a 65-year-old man diagnosed with lung cancer, who also seemed to have severe bleeding. Watson reportedly suggested the man be administered both chemotherapy and the drug "Bevacizumab." But the drug can lead to "severe or fatal hemorrhage," according to a warning on the medication, and therefore shouldn't be given to people with severe bleeding, as Stat points out. A Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center spokesperson told Stat that they believed this recommendation was not given to a real patient, and was just a part of system testing.
According to the report, the documents blame the training provided by IBM engineers and on doctors at MSK, which partnered with IBM in 2012 to train Watson to "think" more like a doctor. The documents state that -- instead of feeding real patient data into the software -- the doctors were reportedly feeding Watson hypothetical patients data, or "synthetic" case data. This would mean it's possible that when other hospitals used the MSK-trained Watson for Oncology, doctors were receiving treatment recommendations guided by MSK doctors' treatment preferences, instead of an AI interpretation of actual patient data. And the results seem to be less than desirable for some doctors.
According to the report, the documents blame the training provided by IBM engineers and on doctors at MSK, which partnered with IBM in 2012 to train Watson to "think" more like a doctor. The documents state that -- instead of feeding real patient data into the software -- the doctors were reportedly feeding Watson hypothetical patients data, or "synthetic" case data. This would mean it's possible that when other hospitals used the MSK-trained Watson for Oncology, doctors were receiving treatment recommendations guided by MSK doctors' treatment preferences, instead of an AI interpretation of actual patient data. And the results seem to be less than desirable for some doctors.
Trump is going down in flames faster each second : https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25...
Trump is not in violation of any of the several "emoluments" clauses. Foreign business interests are fine and do not constitute a violation. Such clauses are designed to prevent foreign nations from installing their own agents to our offices. You'd have to show that he was being directly influenced by a foreign official or head of state. I know that's the popular idea over in CNN land, but in the real world you'd need proof (or even a shred of evidence) to start barking up that tree.
Further, the Senate has the authority to grant exceptions. So even if you imagine digging up some super secret dirt in your little fantasy land, you'd need to flip the senate to do anything about it.
"You'd have to show that he was being directly influenced by a foreign official or head of state"
All the moves he's made in Russia's favor and the disgusting sycophancy he's shown around Putin is raising and should raise a lot of questions.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Listen, facts don't care about your feelings.
I could say the same thing to you. Your feelings against minorities have no bearing on the facts about the base rate of undeserving college students of any race.
If you have data that straight white males have been allowed to stay in college even after failing to meet requirements then I'd like to see it.
The fact that you think it doesn't happen shows your naivety. People attest all the time about how they knew of someone who were in college despite not making the grades because of their parents' connections and/or money. If there's no hard data, it's because people haven't been driven enough to look for it, because hypocrites like you don't want to know the data in the first place.
It's kind of stupid to assume everything is "hunky dory"
Where did I assume that, dickhead? Sure there are problems now. Doesn't mean the past had no problems, as you and that other guy try to argue about how minorities ruined it for everyone.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I noticed you made no effort to disprove that white and asian students are being discriminated against based only on their race. I made my case that this racial discrimination exists. I'd like to see you prove otherwise.
Saying that no one wants to see this data is provably false, numerous colleges and universities have been sued for this data. There are people that want to know. I'm sure that some schools sued over their blatantly racist admissions will fight for this to not come out. That's not because they want to protect their white male privilege, or not only because of that, but because if the claims are proven to be school policy (as opposed to some crazy coincidence) then people could end up in jail.
If you can show that white male students were allowed to get into college without meeting the minimum admission requirements, stay in college when they should have been flunked out, and/or graduated even though they didn't meet the graduation requirements, then this would be breaking the law and I'd want to see it stopped. I don't want to see substandard students of any race get degrees they didn't earn so don't accuse me of being racist here.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.