Medical AI has a safety problem; we know for a fact our testing isn't reliable. We've seen how this plays out before.
For the first time ever AI systems can directly harm patients. Are we doing enough to prevent a medical AI tragedy, the equivalent of a thalidomide event?
Since the CheXNet paper came out in November 2017 I have been communicating with the author team. I'm finally ready to review the paper. Some of the things I found out surprised me.
I just wanted to do a quick follow up to my recent blog post, which discussed the performance metrics I think might be appropriate for use in medical AI studies. One thing I didn't cover was the reason we might want to use multiple metrics, or the philosophy behind choosing the ones I did. So today, … Continue reading The philosophical argument for using ROC curves
Today I want to look at two papers which tell us something very useful about medical AI, particularly if we are trying to predict the future of medicine.
Welcome to 2017! What a blast 2016 was. It seemed like every day there was a new, massive breakthrough in deep learning research. It was also the year that the wider world really started to take notice. The media, professional groups, and the general public all climbed aboard the AI hype train in 2016. Governments commissioned … Continue reading Predicting Medical AI in 2017
In a recent blogpost I explored how to critically read medical artificial intelligence research, focusing on the relevance of these experiments to clinical practice. It has since struck me that we don't have a simple, clear way to discuss the idea that some studies are still a still a long way off use in the clinics, and others … Continue reading The three phases of medical AI trials