AI and Medicine

Does AI have a place in medicine

  • Yes absolutely

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • it's going to happen regardless

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • Total voters
    15
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
Messages
11,133
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Last edited:
ffemt8978 said:
I can foresee all types of benefits and drawbacks to this, especially if patients use it to self diagnose.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's not like they don't already do that with webMD....
 
This is advanced pattern matching, not AI.

Humans are not so easy as test questions.

Pattern matchers cannot perform exams or procedures.
 
Summit said:
This is advanced pattern matching, not AI.

Humans are not so easy as test questions.

Pattern matchers cannot perform exams or procedures.
Click to expand...
Only a matter of time, our lifetime I'm gonna bet, until robotic 'surgeons' are doing procedures that are using robotic assist right now.
 
Saves on scrubs and locker room antics.
 
CCCSD said:
Should be much cheaper using AI Robots. No humans needed.
Click to expand...
Should be but you can bet that it won't be...can't let our future robotic overlords cut into the profit margins.
 
Returning to the topic of the thread, is there a justification for using Large Language Model AI such as ChatGPT in things like Tele-Health or Dial-a-Nurse?
 
I tried using AI (Chat GPT) to read ECGs posted on EMTLIFE and elsewhere.

It often quite confidently interpreted them incorrectly, with a text disclaimer that one should seek the advice of true medical professionals.

I'd be interested to see if interpretations improve with the premium (ChatGPT 4) option.
 
How's AI going to replace a Practitioner's ability to; Feel; Smell; Listen, (when examining a Pt?).

There's more to examining and treating a Pt than entering Data into a Search Engine.

Then there's the old computer adage of; "Garbage In = Garbage Out."

There's a whole Legal, Ethical and Practical Pandora's Box that these Silicon Valley Types have no clue about..lol

The Aviation Industry is experiencing a Dumbing Down of Pilots whose analytical skills degredate due to a Computer Aided Glass Cockpit, (numerous foreign aviation incidents point to these deficiencies where low time pilots relied more on Computers than their flying skills).
 
I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. As it stands now, it’s not designed to replace a person. It’s an adjunct. Think about it as somebody looking over your shoulder who can make suggestions and make connections that you may not see. It can’t perform an examination on a patient, but it can take the results that you gather, and then analyze them to provide differentials. This is where I see big future, especially in austere environments. I’ve used the GPT 4.0 model to do data analysis for a research project, and it produced some excellent results from the information that I fed it. I didn’t send it out to look for things, and I didn’t ask it to create its own material. I gave it very specific prompts and it came back with the stuff that I needed. I think we’ll see a lot more of this as we move forward.

My wife is a veterinarian and she uses 4.0 to create custom discharge and medication instructions for pet owners. It saves her lots of time and she’s created a library of the specific prompts it needs to produce the material that she wants to share.

At the moment, I see large language model AI as a competent but unmotivated assistant. It’ll do the things we ask it to do, but only if we ask with great detail and give it the specific information we need it to use. It won’t be there forever, but that’s where we are right now.
 
I had an ED patient once who worked deep in the back end of Epic (one of the major hospital electronic records systems) at a different hospital. He said most hospitals only use epic to a small fraction of what it’s capable of, and that it’s ability to pull from hundreds of current and past data points make it’s predictive value almost scary.
 
Here's something to ponder;


Are we going to trust the Silicone-Valley Types who have ignored the damage created by continuing to allow the unrestricted internet access to children? In their opinion, unrestricted internet access for children is healthy and safe.

Today we have the American Association of Pediatrics, in their infinite craziness, advocating that 2 year olds be allowed up to 2 hours of electronic device screen time, (again no mention of the issue of unrestricted access). If you have raised children, you recognize that a young child doesn't need an electronic device at this developmental stage and has the potential to hinder a child's development.

IMHO, being behind an electronic device for the majority of a child's day fails to allow a child to develop analytical thinking, common sense and life experiences.

I've been a professional trainer for the majority of my adult years, (both in the Trades and Public Service).. In the last 10-15 yrs I've seen the lack of common sense in a large portion of young adults (18-30), fail to materialize and is now equal to that of an 8 year old. Example; I observed a 25 year old ignite his long hair in fire when he first attempted to smoke his first cigarette then, he ran away and hid, as he had no idea how to respond. I also see 30-40% of 18 year olds have to use their electronic devices to do simple math.

I bring up these observations because we need to realize that the majority of these of young adults and Silicone-Valley decision makers mirror that kid behind the computer and in general, have very little common sense. Yet we're allowing them to steer the development of our future and development children without their recognition the potential threat that these technological advances bring.

The factions in Silicon Valley that are leading the charge with technology, have been turning a blind eye to technology's downfalls, (i.e. certain Internet content), and its link to the causation of today's societal cancers.

I'm not anti-technology. I'm against unrestricted AI until we can fully understand and control the potential of the nefarious and anti-societal capabilities of AI..
 
HardKnocks said:
Here's something to ponder;


Are we going to trust the Silicone-Valley Types who have ignored the damage created by continuing to allow the unrestricted internet access to children? In their opinion, unrestricted internet access for children is healthy and safe.

Today we have the American Association of Pediatrics, in their infinite craziness, advocating that 2 year olds be allowed up to 2 hours of electronic device screen time, (again no mention of the issue of unrestricted access). If you have raised children, you recognize that a young child doesn't need an electronic device at this developmental stage and has the potential to hinder a child's development.

IMHO, being behind an electronic device for the majority of a child's day fails to allow a child to develop analytical thinking, common sense and life experiences.

I've been a professional trainer for the majority of my adult years, (both in the Trades and Public Service).. In the last 10-15 yrs I've seen the lack of common sense in a large portion of young adults (18-30), fail to materialize and is now equal to that of an 8 year old. Example; I observed a 25 year old ignite his long hair in fire when he first attempted to smoke his first cigarette then, he ran away and hid, as he had no idea how to respond. I also see 30-40% of 18 year olds have to use their electronic devices to do simple math.

I bring up these observations because we need to realize that the majority of these of young adults and Silicone-Valley decision makers mirror that kid behind the computer and in general, have very little common sense. Yet we're allowing them to steer the development of our future and development children without their recognition the potential threat that these technological advances bring.

The factions in Silicon Valley that are leading the charge with technology, have been turning a blind eye to technology's downfalls, (i.e. certain Internet content), and its link to the causation of today's societal cancers.

I'm not anti-technology. I'm against unrestricted AI until we can fully understand and control the potential of the nefarious and anti-societal capabilities of AI..
Click to expand...
Ummm...shouldn't the parents be the ones deciding and enforcing that? No to go off topic, but it kind of ties in with some of my concerns about AI and tech in general. Our society seems hell bent on removing any personal responsibility for anything, whether it be parenting, participating in society, or letting tech take over out lives so we're not responsible for our own actions. Unfortunately, even with the benefits of AI in multiple scenarios, I fear there is a downside we're not looking at because we're too enthralled in the moment.

/Old Man Rant...now get off my lawn
 
ffemt8978 said:
Ummm...shouldn't the parents be the ones deciding and enforcing that? No to go off topic, but it kind of ties in with some of my concerns about AI and tech in general. Our society seems hell bent on removing any personal responsibility for anything, whether it be parenting, participating in society, or letting tech take over out lives so we're not responsible for our own actions. Unfortunately, even with the benefits of AI in multiple scenarios, I fear there is a downside we're not looking at because we're too enthralled in the moment.

/Old Man Rant...now get off my lawn
Click to expand...
Parents certainly should be the ones enforcing limits on screen time for their kids. I think the overall point here is that there's no shortage of authorities telling us that things we know probably aren't the best idea are "just fine", and in some cases even encouraging actions and habits that any degree of critical thinking would reveal probably aren't really in our best interest, which means that endorsements of the safety of AI should maybe be viewed with skepticism. It seems that, even aside from any real safety or security concerns, at the individual level, reliance on AI easily has the potential to exacerbate the downsides that we are seeing with over-reliance on technology and screens now.
 
I would say that even with all the advances in AI, the "machine" is going to be unable to perform actual "hands-on" assessment of a patient and is therefore completely at the mercy of whomever inputs information that it can use. That alone puts a major limitation on utilizing AI as a replacement for providers. I'm not saying that AI is useless either. Because of the speed at which these systems do work and their ability to sometimes correlate things that we might not have noticed, it can also be a useful tool for use when thinking about potential diagnoses. It's the machine equivalent of having someone look over your work and say "have you thought about this?" What might be proposed to you may be very much NOT what you thought or even be correct... but it could fit the data presented and it is possible that what is suggested does lead you down a different diagnostic tree to perhaps an even better answer than what you'd initially thought.

In short, I might welcome a tool that helps me figure out what's going on with a patient... but I wouldn't allow that tool the ability to prescribe or perform procedures on a patient on its own. I'm 100% including AED's on this. You shouldn't be able to turn'em on and have them auto-spark all on their own.
 
Apparently mental health is a big area where people are turning to AI for therapy and advice. Much cheaper than a Real Therapist.



Waiting for suicide as the best treatment option… It will happen.
 
CCCSD said:
Apparently mental health is a big area where people are turning to AI for therapy and advice. Much cheaper than a Real Therapist.



Waiting for suicide as the best treatment option… It will happen.
Click to expand...
Wait no longer...

californiahealthline.org

Disability Rights Groups Sue to Overturn California’s Physician-Assisted Death Law - California Healthline

Disability rights advocates and two individuals with disabilities sued Tuesday to overturn the state's physician-assisted death law, arguing it is unconstitutional, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, and makes it too easy for people with terminal diseases whose deaths aren't imminent...
californiahealthline.org californiahealthline.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top