Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Siebe Rozendal's avatar

Good to see fossil fuel's contributing to electricity generation decrease. But shouldn't we want to see increasing electricity generation? It's a decade of horizontal, and electricity is still only a quarter of all energy consumption in the EU..

MICHAEL DAWSON's avatar

I think there is a problem with your reference to the Norwegian radiologists study.

You say that "Applying this across all screenings would reduce total radiologist workload at breast centers by 4.5 percent". Given the change is from using two human radiologists to one, this seems a very small reduction. It is so small for a couple of reasons.

First, the researchers assume that reviewing a scan takes only one minute - I'm not an expert, but this seems a remarkably short average time. This article, for example, suggests significantly longer time - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38852330/

Second, the researchers seem to assume that AI could not do anything else apart from reviewing a scan. But it obviously could do other things, such as all the admin around writing up the assessment, notifying patients and other medics, arranging follow ups etc. So the time savings from using AI should be a lot more than 4.5%.

Of course, within a few years (or less), if it is not there already then AI will be superior to even the best human radiologist at reading a scan.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?