Aren't these algorithms trained on expert-annotated data? If so how does it end up performing better than radiologists? Or are these radiologists only mediocre at detecting cancer?
I'm a doctor but not a radiologist. I imagine it would go like this:
Computer makes diagnosis on image of lesion that has already been biopsied and has a known correct diagnosis.
I don't know how it would work for human false negatives that were never biopsied. Possibly the AI could be trusted enough to make a biopsy on its recommendation.
Comments
Aren't these algorithms trained on expert-annotated data? If so how does it end up performing better than radiologists? Or are these radiologists only mediocre at detecting cancer?
I'm a doctor but not a radiologist. I imagine it would go like this:
Computer makes diagnosis on image of lesion that has already been biopsied and has a known correct diagnosis.
I don't know how it would work for human false negatives that were never biopsied. Possibly the AI could be trusted enough to make a biopsy on its recommendation.