AI Replacing Radiologists

I disagree. Hasn't it been shown that AI outperform radiologists on recognizing diseases from images?

We really can't, it's a tool not a radiologist. Medicine is a critical field, can't afford hallucinations and sloppiness

I don't have exact domain knowledge but I'm fairly certain this type of tech has already been employed to do some of the heavy lifting for radiologists reviewing imaging results.

Even if this worked as well as a human radiologist, diagnosis is not only made of radiology. That's why radiology is a support specialty. Other specialists incorporate radiology exams into their own assessment to decide on a treatment plan. So in the end, I don't think it'll change as much as you'd think, even if freely accessible.

Believe me it's not the same, especially at ultrasound where everything it's not clear due external factors an body types. I do this for a living (radiologist)plus I love programming and would like to see those two come together but the reality is different. Ai could assist doctors and suggest possible findings.

You need a specialist to understand an MRI image. Maybe software will advance enough to change this, but it will be a slow progress. Also, carterls are definitely a thing. Radiologists will fight the software part.

Radiologists most definitely are trying. Our institute's entire medical imaging research arm is driven by several very motivated practicing radiologists. You just misunderstand what it is that they do, fundamentally. Diddling with some pics and publishing papers is just not in the same league as making medical diagnoses. A lot is riding on their understanding every little artifact of the algorithm/approach that gives them a modified image to interpret. They will never accept black-box

I don't understand why this comment is downvoted. Automated screening of radiological images by means of neural net is an extensively researched topic. Ten years ago there had been predictions that such automated screening will displace the radiologists, but that clearly did not happen.For instance, this article is silent on false positive/false negative rates of the software. There is no comparison with other research. It reads like a corporate press release promoting a product.

Trivial radiology is pattern matching. Radiology for which you need a radiologist for is not. Yes, you could replace part of radiology and some radiologists with algorithms today. Unfortunately, those are also mostly the cases where we don't need radiologists.I'm sorry, but in many cases and even many important diagnoses that impact the patient, 2 radiologists that aren't allowed to communicate will sometimes reach widely different conclusions. Additionally, if you've inte

Redundant/distributed/crowd-sourced diagnoses? Instead of a single radiologist, fan it out to many.