13:35: the system did pick one stromal cell instead of a tumour cell to design the bottom left green pattern. only pathologist eye can still distinguish this, but overall incredibly interesting.
"Only pathologist eye can still distinguish this" argument is nonsense. Software's accuracy at this point is irrelevant. It shows that the work can be done if enough parameters are added.
@@frantishekressel3910 The video has nothing to do with pathologists' work. That video is not about pathologists' contribution. It is about where AI is now, where it has the potential to reach in the future
@@alicantuncel197 you are approving something without a real evidence and full confidence from the folks knowing about this field massively way more than your imagination. Well go do a trip and do observe for _long time_ whatever goes into these fields. Don't talk before experiencing any of this yourself or until you have great certification from pathologist themselves.
I believe this is about a decision support system, and not a full replacement of humans. Just as optometrists now rely on automated readings (from machines) instead of traditional methods, these intelligent systems will enhance human shortcomings for better healthcare.
The title of this speech is way off base. It damages the credibility of the speaker because it illustrates his dramatic naivete. Pathologists need AI assistance to deal with the extreme volume of data, but AI needs Pathologists more to teach machine learning and pattern recognition machines to recognize cancer unequivocally. Fix the title of the talk.
It does not illustrate any naivette. The title is actually extremely accurate. When software reaches enough accuracy it is going to replace pathologists, same is applicable to radiologists and dermatologists (on some level).
@@alicantuncel197 no evidence yet. All those models are irrelevant for self generating without the specialist. And in medicine there is no concept of "machine 100% accurate" which is actually what is mostly oversighted by folks.
@@masterchief5603 nothing is "oversighted by folks" a ton evidence and currently working models exist, i suggest you to get your head out of where it is and do some proper literature search.
@@masterchief5603 You are a joke. Years full of work and evidence exist and some dude with probably no basic understanding of research comes up talks like "no evidence yet". You have no idea what you are talking about and you are spreading misinformation.
But definitely it’s a group of pathologists who helped create this. What about their bias and setbacks. They will be impregnated into the AI as well and it will have same setbacks just in an exaggerated manner
Great and impactful talk about the evolution about personalized medicine and the impact of technology such as AI.
Excellent
13:35: the system did pick one stromal cell instead of a tumour cell to design the bottom left green pattern. only pathologist eye can still distinguish this, but overall incredibly interesting.
"Only pathologist eye can still distinguish this" argument is nonsense. Software's accuracy at this point is irrelevant. It shows that the work can be done if enough parameters are added.
@@alicantuncel197 Since Pathologists are the one to define the ground truth when training, this has massive sense.
@@frantishekressel3910 The video has nothing to do with pathologists' work. That video is not about pathologists' contribution. It is about where AI is now, where it has the potential to reach in the future
@@alicantuncel197 you are approving something without a real evidence and full confidence from the folks knowing about this field massively way more than your imagination. Well go do a trip and do observe for _long time_ whatever goes into these fields.
Don't talk before experiencing any of this yourself or until you have great certification from pathologist themselves.
Excellent presentation...well delivered...
this is super coo!
Beautiful talk and even more beautiful data
excellent. I have a question. But can we use it to predict if a pneumonia person is going to be aggressive or not? I have a final year project on that
Who takes responsibility when the AI goes wrong?
I believe this is about a decision support system, and not a full replacement of humans. Just as optometrists now rely on automated readings (from machines) instead of traditional methods, these intelligent systems will enhance human shortcomings for better healthcare.
Not pathologists.
EKG machines also have its recommended diagnoses but Drs cannot trust that alone. Drs have to use their own judgments.
People are alway looking how to get money from others. I hate patients like that.
Who takes responsibility if a doctor gets it wrong?
The title of this speech is way off base. It damages the credibility of the speaker because it illustrates his dramatic naivete.
Pathologists need AI assistance to deal with the extreme volume of data, but AI needs Pathologists more to teach machine learning and pattern recognition machines to recognize cancer unequivocally.
Fix the title of the talk.
It does not illustrate any naivette. The title is actually extremely accurate. When software reaches enough accuracy it is going to replace pathologists, same is applicable to radiologists and dermatologists (on some level).
@@alicantuncel197 no evidence yet. All those models are irrelevant for self generating without the specialist. And in medicine there is no concept of "machine 100% accurate" which is actually what is mostly oversighted by folks.
@@masterchief5603 nothing is "oversighted by folks" a ton evidence and currently working models exist, i suggest you to get your head out of where it is and do some proper literature search.
@@masterchief5603 machines do not need to be 100% accurate although they come really close, they just need to get past doctors.
@@masterchief5603 You are a joke. Years full of work and evidence exist and some dude with probably no basic understanding of research comes up talks like "no evidence yet". You have no idea what you are talking about and you are spreading misinformation.
But definitely it’s a group of pathologists who helped create this.
What about their bias and setbacks. They will be impregnated into the AI as well and it will have same setbacks just in an exaggerated manner
I don’t agree with the title. Pathogists will benefit from having AI tools during S/O though
sometimes i wonder if it is not more like survival of the shrewdest, the meanest or the most physically strong