Unfortunately AI models like this one often never make it to the clinic. The model could be impressive enough to identify 100% of cases that will develop breast cancer. However if it has a false positive rate of say 5% it’s use may actually create more harm than it intends to prevent.
Another big thing to note, we recently had a different but VERY similar headline about finding typhoid early and was able to point it out more accurately than doctors could.
But when they examined the AI to see what it was doing, it turns out that it was weighing the specs of the machine being used to do the scan… An older machine means the area was likely poorer and therefore more likely to have typhoid. The AI wasn’t pointing out if someone had Typhoid it was just telling you if they were in a rich area or not.
That’s actually really smart. But that info wasn’t given to doctors examining the scan, so it’s not a fair comparison. It’s a valid diagnostic technique to focus on the particular problems in the local area.
“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras” (outside of Africa)
AI is weird. It may not have been given the information explicitly. Instead it could be an artifact in the scan itself due to the different equipment. Like if one scan was lower resolution than the others but you resized all of the scans to be the same size as the lowest one the AI might be picking up on the resizing artifacts which are not present in the lower resolution one.
I’m saying that info is readily available to doctors in real life. They are literally in the hospital and know what the socioeconomic background of the patient is. In real life they would be able to guess the same.
The manufacturing date of the scanner was actually saved as embedded metadata to the scan files themselves. None of the researchers considered that to be a thing until after the experiment when they found that it was THE thing that the machines looked at.
The thing is tho… It has a better detection rate ON THE SAMPLES THEY HAD but because it wasn’t actually detecting anything other than wealth there was no way for them to trust it would stay accurate.
What if one of those lower economic areas decides that the machine is too old and they need to replace it with a brand new one? Now every single case is a false negative because of how highly that was rated in the system.
The data they had collected followed that trend but there is no way to think that it’ll last forever or remain consistent because it isn’t about the person it’s just about class.
Right, there’s typically separate “training” and “validation” sets for a model to train, validate, and iterate on, and then a totally separate “test” dataset that measures how effective the model is on similar data that it wasn’t trained on.
If the model gets good results on the validation dataset but less good on the test dataset, that typically means that it’s “over fit”. Essentially the model started memorizing frivolous details specific to the validation set that while they do improve evaluation results on that specific dataset, they do nothing or even hurt the results for the testing and other datasets that weren’t a part of training. Basically, the model failed to abstract what it’s supposed to detect, only managing good results in validation through brute memorization.
I’m not sure if that’s quite what’s happening in maven’s description though. If it’s real my initial thoughts are an unrepresentative dataset + failing to reach high accuracy to begin with. I buy that there’s a correlation between machine specs and positive cases, but I’m sure it’s not a perfect correlation. Like maven said, old areas get new machines sometimes. If the models accuracy was never high to begin with, that correlation may just be the models best guess. Even though I’m sure that it would always take machine specs into account as long as they’re part of the dataset, if actual symptoms correlate more strongly to positive diagnoses than machine specs do, then I’d expect the model to evaluate primarily on symptoms, and thus be more accurate. Sorry this got longer than I wanted
It’s no problem to have a longer description if you want to get nuance. I think that’s a good description and fair assumptions. Reality is rarely as black and white as reddit/lemmy wants it to be.
A false positive of even 50% can mean telling the patient “they are at a higher risk of developing breast cancer and should get screened every 6 months instead of every year for the next 5 years”.
Keep in mind that women have about a 12% chance of getting breast cancer at some point in their lives. During the highest risk years its a 2 percent chamce per year, so a machine with a 50% false positive for a 5 year prediction would still only be telling like 15% of women to be screened more often.
How would a false positive create more harm? Isn’t it better to cast a wide net and detect more possible cases? Then false negatives are the ones that worry me the most.
Well it’d certainly benefit the medical industry. They’d be saddling tons of patients with surgeries, chemotherapy, mastectomy, and other treatments, “because doctor-GPT said so.”
But imagine being a patient getting physically and emotionally altered, plunged into irrecoverable debt, distressing your family, and it all being a whoopsy by some black-box software.
That’s a good point, that it could burden the system, but why would you ever put someone on chemotherapy for the model described in the paper? It seems more like it could burden the system by increasing the number of patients doing more frequent screening. Someone has to pay for all those docter-patient and meeting hours for sure. But the benefit outweighs this cost (which in my opinion is good and cheap since it prevents future treatment at later stages that are expensive).
Biopsies are small but still invasive. There’s risk of infection or reactions to anesthesia in any surgery. If 100 million women get this test, a 5% false positive rate will mean 5 million unnecessary interventions. Not to mention the stress of being told you have cancer.
5 million unnecessary interventions means a small percentage of those people (thousands) will die or be harmed by the treatment. That’s the harm that it causes.
You have really good point too! Maybe just an indication of higher risk, and just saying “Hey, screening more often couldn’t hurt.” Might actually be a net positive, and wouldn’t warrant such extreme measures unless it was positively identified by, hopefully, human professionals.
You’re right though, there always seems to be more demand than supply for anything medicine related. Not to mention, here in the U.S for example, needless extra screenings could also heavily impact a lot of people.
It’s a common problem in diagnostics and it’s why mammograms aren’t recommended to women under 40.
Let’s say you have 10,000 patients. 10 have cancer or a precancerous lesion. Your test may be able to identify all 10 of those patients. However, if it has a false positive rate of 5% that’s around 500 patients who will now get biopsies and potentially surgery that they don’t actually need. Those follow up procedures carry their own risks and harms for those 500 patients. In total, that harm may outweigh the benefit of an earlier diagnosis in those 10 patients who have cancer.
That’s just not generally true. Mammograms are usually only recommended to women over 40. That’s because the rates of breast cancer in women under 40 are low enough that testing them would cause more harm than good thanks in part to the problem of false positives.
Nearly 4 out of 5 that progress to biopsy are benign. Nearly 4 times that are called for additional evaluation. The false positives are quite high compared to other imaging. It is designed that way, to decrease the chances of a false negative.
The false negative rate is also quite high. It will miss about 1 in 5 women with cancer. The reality is mammography is just not all that powerful as a screening tool. That’s why the criteria for who gets screened and how often has been tailored to try and ensure the benefits outweigh the risks. Although it is an ongoing debate in the medical community to determine just exactly what those criteria should be.
New World coral snakes possess one of the most potent venoms of any North American snake. However, relatively few bites are recorded due to their reclusive nature and the fact they generally inhabit sparsely populated areas. Even in areas that are densely populated, bites are rare.
Also not to be confused with the non-venomous king snake:
They taught us that at summer camp. They were trying to conserve water and had a little song to remind us, “If it’s yellow let it mellow, if it’s brown flush it down.”
Basically, the water would be held inside the bucket in the shape of the bucket without getting the bucket wet, because the hydrophobic coating would prevent the water from touching the bucket, however the water would still touch the hydrophobic coating, it just will not stick to the hydrophobic coating.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !wimmelbilder
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like the floors on the surface are oriented radially, so mostly most floors are oriented north, while the outer floors are oriented up.
If you can’t find something and you’ve looked everywhere, get a flashlight and look again while pointing the flashlight. It has worked for me every time.
A Coast G20 flashlight is about $10 on Amazon, and has a very tight spotlight circle “inspection” beam. It’s my go-to for searching because it makes you focus on a small area.
I dunno, I just got some and just… got more hahaha. Even my shittiest flashlights are way brighter than any smartphone’s LEDs.
I mainly keep them everywhere so I can quickly take important cat pictures. Shining the brighter ones at the ceiling makes for perfect lighting for indoor cat pics. I don’t like using flash on animals, and my I keep my room pretty dim. But gosh dangit cats are so cute.
haha I guess their fur requires a special kind of lighting that I never thought about. I assumed funny internet cat pics were more moments of spontaneity than diligently prepared shooting sets hehe
Thank you. It’s worse than you think. I’ve recently uploaded 20,000 photos to my laptop… which now has about 30k photos on it. A majority of those are of my cats. The quantity exploded when we got baby kittens.
10,000 years from now, once they dig out the digital backups and find your strangely well-preserved collection. They will immediately assume from the sheer proportion of photos of yourself vs your cats, that cats were the dominant life form who kept humans around as pets
The D4V2 you were looking for in the above post has RGB AUX LEDs and I think a button light iirc. You can set them to a bunch of colors on high or low brightness, or even have them show the battery level. On low-brightness, depending on color, they can stay on 24-7 for 2-6 YEARS before running the battery down (hell, on high, they can stay on for 1-3 months before needing a recharge). They are wonderful for finding it in the dark.
AUX lights make it one of the best nightstand lights. Anduril 2 makes it have some cool tricks too. I have mine have high red aux when unlocked so it can be used as a darklight just by unlocking it, then it auto locks after a minute of non-use and the aux goes to low and uses colors to display battery level.
Look up an ANDURIL2 video guide or the graphical control layout to see how it is all done. (Videos help a lot)
Ohhhhh the fancy RGB lights! I have them on high brightness/cycle RGB because I use the hard lock when they’re not in use. I do have like 20 18650s from when I was vaping a mech mod so I change them out frequently! It’s insane that they can last that long in low brightness! I should totally change my mode to show battery level using the colors—I just have to read the maps of how to use one button to do that for both (my D4V2 is on the old version of the firmware and my D8 is on the new!)
I also am struggling to find out how to change my D8 to only light up one side or the other—I got warm lights on one side and cool/insanely bright on them other. I’d love to switch between them but I don’t wanna bother people and even with tutorials it’s tough for me to find exactly how to do that. Also The Map… my goodness.
The DT8? The flat one? I didn’t know that came in dual-channel. If it is ANDURIL2 then when it is on (single click from off) it is 3H (click-click-clickHOLD) to get into the tint ramp, which on a dual channel should slide between channel 1 and channel 2 (granular and smooth is selected in the deeper settings).
You know the pop culture reference we use for someone who has misplaced their cellphone, “have you tried calling it?”
This will sound absolutely silly, but one day a friend was looking for some trinket which wasn’t a phone, and playfully I asked, “Have you tried calling it?”
They doubled down and started actually calling it, “Trinket… trinket, where are you?”
And wouldn’t you know it, within minutes they found it, and so far this has worked about 99.9% of the time.
So like using a flashlight focuses your eyes, having someone call it out loud kind of quiets the mind, too. It’s wild.
I never tried calling it like a pet, but I normally say “where is this damn thing?” And then find it shortly afterwards. I’m guessing speaking the object out loud let’s the object know you are looking for it. That way the object can show up and act like it was there the
I use my hands to kind of do the same thing. It’s probably the behaviour they modeled Monk’s “hand thing” after. It still helps even if I’m searching using my memory and spatial awareness to recall and search through something I am not currently looking at. Somehow, narrowing the scope physically with my hands helps. It’s probably a muscle memory or proprioception thing.
For example, if I want to find something to eat in the fridge. I generally won’t be able to think of anything by just opening the fridge and looking through it. Unless there is something super obvious like a leftover pizza box or something else impossible to miss like that. Just trying to search by looking at each shelf only increases the odds of finding something by like 5%. But when I use my hand and slowly move it down the shelves, I can somehow think more clearly about what is on each shelf than I could without using my hand. And, as I mentioned, it also works even if I am no longer looking in the fridge. I can do it with the door closed and still more clearly recall what was on each shelf.
It also helps when scanning through my whole house looking for something, with and without currently having eyes on it. Like scanning through the whole house room by room while still sitting at my computer, I do a much better job if I am pointing my hand at the place I am thinking about as I scan.
I should probably mention I am Autistic, my spatial awareness and proprioception are two areas I have seemed to benefit. But it’s very easy to get confused or distracted if I have too much information at once. So that is mostly what is going on. I can’t just imagine that I am pointing at something in my imagination to gain the benefit, I have to be literally, physically pointing. Although I can translocate, like not be at my house or fridge and still scan my house or fridge by pointing relatively where each thing would be if they were there.
It’s not limited in scope as far as I can tell. Though it is kind of limited in resolution. The bigger the area I am scanning, the less detail I can recall about it when I am not there, or “looking through walls”. But when I am there, I can go as fine grained as the search demands, just takes longer.
I heard that, at least in countries where we read left to right, we also look for things left to right. And if you reverse this and look from right to left that you’re more likely to notice something you otherwise missed. So I do that. But I have no data to confirm if it works…
Further, if you drop something small, like a screw, set the flashlight on the floor. This will make all the small things cast long shadows and stand out way more.
On a Mac, press and hold a character key and a list of accent characters will appear. There are also dead key combinations using the option key to enter special characters directly.
If you’re like me and wondered what a dead key is…
A dead key is a special kind of modifier key on a mechanical typewriter, or computer keyboard, that is typically used to attach a specific diacritic to a base letter.[1] The dead key does not generate a (complete) character by itself, but modifies the character generated by the key struck immediately after.
On Windows, you can open the emoji picker with Win+. or Win+, (depending on locale iirc). Then just switch to the symbols tab by clicking the omega symbol and chose å
Alternatively, you can install PowerToys, which includes a quick accentuator tool.
I mostly just had the alt+whatever codes memorized when I was typing French or German, but I didn't always have a numpad when I was using laptops away from home. I just ended up using charmap and never realized newer windows had any replacement (although I'm on mac for work and also use linux for both work and some home stuff now as well so not spending as much time in Windows).
Because you would need to know the code for å in all kb layouts, on all OS’s, even in a bare terminal with no way to just open the emoji picker, with or without special keys and no clipboard. Of course, tab completion or globs may help you, but not in all cases.
Try to select blåhaj.txt in a dir with blåhaj.txt and blahaj.txt present. Easy, ls blhaj.txt | grep -i blahaj.txt. Now with blåhaj.txt and bløhaj.txt. Not as easy anymore, but doable with tail -n1 or head -n1. Now do it consistently in a script. So you again need to single out the right string, or single char, and >> it into the script so you have the special char. Then you have a component that does not like certain special chars, so you need to escape it. All because one decided to use special chars as a file name/identifier. Using [a-zA-Z0-9-_.:;,] would be so easy.
So, you create a file with the name containing å. Then you send it to another person. They want to handle it via the command line. Because it’s more efficient. So that person needs to know said information.
Most people never type a full file name on the command line, they normally just use file name completion.
And if they happen to have a lot of files that are only distinguished by some single character, what would be so difficult about typing that one character then?
That happens to men who are considered experts in their field as frequently, statistically probably more frequently. Men get asked more frequently, and are absolutely ignored by everyone that asks them constantly. I’m a jack of all trades, a master of few, and a doctor of some, and 95% of the time that I am asked for my analysis in business or politics I present a masters level thesis, and get paid a ridiculous amount of money to do so. So far, because my analysis has consistently claimed for 334/336 contracts that their proposed ideas would cost them money, they decided to pay my fee and ignore my thoroughly sourced analysis.
I’m sure your conclusions were ignored. But not because of your gender, it’s because they didn’t like what you had to say. Buddy, I’ve seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. As “one of the boys” men feel comfortable telling me things like “I’ll never let a girl fly on my endorsement” ( this person being a flight instructor). And “Is there a different mechanic I can talk to?” Before she even gave him a diagnosis. Or flat out ignoring a really good suggestion in a meeting at a brand new school I worked at. Only to have a male colleague suggest the same thing an hour later to praise and action. Shit’s fucked.
As an IT guy, a chef, and a jack of all trades and master of few, that happens far more often than I would care to admit. I have literally had people tell me, "Well, yes you know more about [blank} than anyone I’ve ever met, but your analysis doesn’t {make line go up] so it must be wrong, because [line must always go up.}
Fucking Jack Welsh. I wish I could build a time machine and shoot that shortsighted asshole between the eyes just before he laid off his first GM employee in the name of imaginary profit.
I’m an Analyst. The amount of times I’ve had to tell people how their business works based on the data they had me analyse and prove their own preconceptions wrong…
“I was under the impression it should work that way”
Great! I’ll whip up a report showing just how often it doesn’t.
“Those are edge cases”
They make up about 35%
“Can we filter them from the final report?”
Then your figures will be way off and I get to justify the error when inevitably someone spots it and will blame the data for it. Fix the issue in the source, if you don’t want it screwing up your numbers.
At this point, I blame the devs. This has been a known quantity for years. Does it move? A player wants to fuck it. Does it not move? Gettin’ fucked by it. Does it not exist? They’ll find a way to dick it or get dicked by it.
I think Larian’s response is them leaning into joke — by replying at all, they’re boosting the original query, but they’re also drawing a line on how far they’re willing to indulge that side of things (officially). I refuse to believe that Larian are actually shocked or perturbed by this question, as their reply suggests, because bear sex is within the game itself, so they’ve definitely fed the fire. Pretending to be confused is part of the joke, I reckon
I sometimes do the math on people’s birthdays to see what holiday they were conceived around. Lots of early September (Christmas/New Years) and November birthdays (Valentines)
Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn’t an official act.
As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same… They’ll get shut down.
That’s the perfect! That’s why we nominate someone of Bidens age. Not only can he get away with it now as an “official act” but by the time the next court rules on it, he’ll be long gone
kbin.life
Top