This article is surprisingly accurate. I fully expect to finish my career without being 'replaced' by AI.
Happy to debate/answer questions :-)
For example, let's say I'm looking at a chest x-ray. There is a pneumonia at the left lung base and I am clever enough to notice it. 'Aha', I think, congratulating myself at making the diagnosis and figuring out why the patient is short of breath.
But, in this example, I stop looking closely at the X-ray after noticing the pneumonia, so I miss a pneumothorax at the right lung apex.
I have made a mistake radiologists call 'satisfaction of search'.
My 'search' for the patient's problem was 'satisfied' by finding the pneumonia, and because I am human and therefore fundamentally flawed, I stopped looking for a second clinically relevant diagnosis.
An AI module that detects a pneumothorax is not prone to this type of error. So it sees something I did not. But it doesn't see something that I can't see. I just didn't look.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/11/1714096...
I'm skeptical to the claim that AI isn't prone to this sort of error, though. AI loves the easy answer.
Ah, now I have a name for it.
When I've chased a bug and fixed a problem I found that would cause the observed problem behavior, but haven't yet proven the behavior is corrected, I'm always careful to specify that "I fixed a problem, but I don't know if I fixed the problem". Seems similar: found and fixed a bug that could explain the issue, but that doesn't mean there's not another one that, independently, would also cause the same observed problem.
That is, the models spot pathologies that 99.9999% of rads would spot anyway if not overworked, tired, or in a hurry. But, addressing the implication of your question, the value is actually in spotting a pathology that 99.9999% of rads would never spot. In all my years developing medical imaging startups and software, I've never seen it happen.
I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
I agree with almost everything you've said here.
Except 'not in my lifetime', because I plan on living for a very long time, and who knows what those computer nerds will come up with eventually ;-)
Been going to RSNA for longer than you've been a radiologist. In all that time, I've never come across an AI that I felt was fit for purpose.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Many many reasons for this, and I'm happy to chime in from the tech side of things and fill in any blanks outside your knowledge domain.
Will you be able to source a radioactive source for your x-rays?
DIY radiation therapy would be a whole new level.
Healthcare-grade x-ray tubes to put in your (expensive) x-ray machine are not something you easily can obtain without a license.
My personal opinion is that a lot of Medical professionals are simply gatekeeping at this point of time and using legal definitions to keep changing goalposts.
However this is a theme that will keep on repeating in all domains and I do feel that gradual change is better than sudden, disruptive change.
The other doctors will still be there for you to sue.
> Radiologists do far more than study images. They advise other doctors and surgeons, talk to patients, write reports and analyze medical records. After identifying a suspect cluster of tissue in an organ, they interpret what it might mean for an individual patient with a particular medical history, tapping years of experience.
AI will do that more efficiently, and probably already does. "tapping years of experience" is just data in training set.
> A.I. can also automatically identify images showing the highest probability of an abnormal growth, essentially telling the radiologist, “Look here first.” Another program scans images for blood clots in the heart or lungs, even when the medical focus may be elsewhere. > “A.I. is everywhere in our workflow now,” Dr. Baffour said. > “Five years from now, it will be malpractice not to use A.I.,” he said. “But it will be humans and A.I. working together.”
Maybe you'll be able to happily retire because inertia, but overall it looks like elevator operator job.
What's so special about radiology?
However, it's my opinion that my job takes general intelligence, not just pattern matching.
Therefore, when I lose my job to AI, so does everyone else.
On the other hand, a lot of jobs take general intelligence. You’re right about that too.
It’s difficult to guess the specifics of your life, but: maybe you’ve engaged a real estate agent. Some people use no real estate agent. Some have a robo agent. No AI involved. Maybe you have written a will. Some people go online and spend $500 on templates from Trust & Will, others spend $3,000 on a lawyer to fill in the templates for them, some don’t do any of that at all. Even in medicine, you know, a pharma rep has to go and convince someone to add their thing to the guidelines, and you can look back at the time between the study and adoption as, well people were intelligent and there was demand, but doctors were not doing so and so thing due to lack of essentially sales. I mean you don’t have to be generally intelligent to know that flossing is good for you, and yet: so few people floss! That would maybe not put tons of dentists out of business. But people are routinely doing (or not doing) professional services stuff not for any good (or bad) reason at all.
Clearly the thing going on in the professional services economy isn’t about general intelligence - there’s already lots of stuff that is NOT happening long before AI changes the game. It’s all cultural.
If you’ve gotten this far without knowing what I am talking about… listen, who knows what’s going to happen? Clearly a lot of behavior is not for any good reason.
How do you know where the ball is going to go for culture? Personally I think it’s a kind of arrogant position: “I’m a member of the guild, and from my POV, if my profession is replaced, so is everyone else’s.” Arrogance is not an attractive culture, it’s an adversarial one! And you could say inertia, and yet: look who’s running the HHS! There are kids right now, that I know in my real life, who look like you or me, who went to fancy Ivy League school, and they are vaccine skeptical. What about inertia and general intelligence then? So I’ll just say, you know, putting yourself out here on this forum, being all like, “I will AMA, I am the voice,” and then to be so arrogant: you are your own evidence for why maybe it won’t last 10 years.
I jumped into this thread to share my thoughts, and my thoughts alone, because I'm not sure there are a lot of radiologists on HN. I certainly don't speak for all radiologists.
But, I would submit to you, that rapid, radical changes to the practice of medicine are rare, if not impossible.
Not quite right? Some fields are licensed, regulated, and have appointments -- and others are not. AI is most keenly focused on fields w/o licensure barriers
I should have said when an AI can do my job it can do anyone's job.
- If the law allows AI to replace you.
- If the hospital/company thinks [AI cost + AI-caused law suits] will be less expensive that [your salary + law suites caused by you].
If AI gets to the point where it is truly replacing radiologists and programmers wholesale, it is difficult to tell anyone what to do about it today, because that's essentially on the other side of the singularity from here. Who knows what the answer will be?
(Ironically, the author of that paper, being also a science fiction author, is also responsible for morphing the singularity into "the rapture for nerds" in his own sci-fi writing. But I find the original paper's definition to have more utility in the current world.)
[1]: https://accelerating.org/articles/comingtechsingularity
And, I didn't say I would never be replaced. I said I would finish my career, which is approximately 10 more years at this point.
Can you please edit out swipes like that from your HN posts? (Prepending "respectfully" doesn't help much.) This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
The rest of your comment is just fine of course.
On the other hand, how much of your confidence in not being replaced stems from AI not being able to do the work, and how much from legal/societal issues (a human needing to be legally responsible for the diagnoses)? Honestly the description in the article of what a radiologist does "Radiologists do far more than study images. They advise other doctors and surgeons, talk to patients, write reports and analyze medical records. After identifying a suspect cluster of tissue in an organ, they interpret what it might mean for an individual patient with a particular medical history, tapping years of experience" doesn't strike me as anything impossible for AI within a few years, now that models are multimodal and they can work with increasing amounts of text (e.g. medical histories).
Askl to your question on where my confidence stems from, there are both legal reasons and 'not being able to do the work' reasons.
Legal is easy, the most powerful lobby in most states are trial attorneys. They simply won't allow a situation where liability cannot be attached to medical practice. Somebody is getting sued.
As to what I do day to day, I don't think I'm just matching patterns. I believe what I do takes general intelligence. Therefore, when AI can do my job, it can do everyone else's job as well.
For context, generative AI music is basically unlistenable. I’ve yet to come across a convincing song, let alone 30 seconds worth of viable material. The AI tools can help musicians in their workflow, but they have no concept of human emotion or expression and it shows. Interpreting a radiology problem is more like an art form than a jigsaw puzzle, otherwise it would’ve been automated long ago (like a simple blood test). Like you note, the legal system in the US prides itself on “accountability” (said tongue in cheek) and AI suffers no consequences.
Just look how well AI worked in the United Healthcare deployment involving medical care and money. Hint: stock is still falling.
This one pops into my head every couple months:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4gYStWmO1jQ
It's not really my genre, so my judgment is perhaps clouded. Also, I find the dumb lyrics entertaining and they were probably written by a human (though obviously an AI could be prompted to do just as well). I am a fan of unique character in vocals and I love that it pronounces "A-R-A" as "ah-ahr-ah", but the little bridge at 1:40 does nothing for me.
Which is ironic given how much variation in output quality there is based on the judgement of the person using the LLM (work scope, domain, prompt quality, etc.)
About that, I think the AMA is ultimately going to be a victim of its own success. It achieved its goal of creating a shortage of medical professionals and enriching the existing ones. I don't think any of their careers are in danger.
However, long term, I think magic (in the form of sufficiently advanced technology) is going to become cost effective at the prices that the health care market is operating at. First the medical professionals will become wholly dependent on it, then everyone will ask why we need to pay these people eye-watering sums of money to ask the computers questions when we can do that ourselves, for free.
Not as far as I know. Once an automated diagnostic is reasonably accurate, it replaces humans doing the work manually. The same would be true of anything else that can be automatically detected.
No comment on whether radiology is close to that yet, although I don't think a few-million-param neural network would tell us much one way or another.
My point, which I made poorly, is this: There's a reason doctors that went to medical school in India and trained as Radiologists in India can't read US cases remotely for a fraction of the cost of US trained and licensed radiologists.
It's not because the systems to read remotely don't exist.
It's not because they're poorly trained or bad doctors.
Itsty because they can't be sued.
The most powerful lobby in this case is the ABR which carefully constricts coveted residency spots in Radiology to create an artificial scarcity and keep up incomes. It is the opposite of, say, technology, where we have no gatekeeper and supply increases.
The ABR will say that Medicare doesnt fund enough residency spots, but all you need to do is look at an EoB and see that a week of residency billings covers the entire cost of the resident.
For what it's worth, I started a new residency program to train more radiologist, so I do have some skin in the game.
Like there are times already where I’ve put off or not sought medical care because of the hassle involved.
If I could just waltz into the office and get an appointment and have an issue seen to same day I would probably do it more often.
I'm sure this will all get better with captain brainworms at the helm.
Remove that barrier to access and we won't see a shiny new streamlined medical system but rather a flood of new patients requiring even more bureaucracy to manage.
I dont think this is how market participants may think about it. If costs decrease, some group of radiologists will drop out of the market. We may not "need" less radiologists, but we're signaling we need less of them by not paying them as much as before.
Much like I still "need" a photographer, but short of weddings, I'm not willing to pay as much as before. I may well acquire a photogrpher for a portrait, but it would have to be priced competitively to a selfie.
The only industries that has observed the opposite effect I can think of so far are translators and stock photographers. Maybe also proof readers - but is that gen Ai or did spellcheckers already kill that branch?
I imagine, given the training involved, the job involves more than just looking at pictures? This is what I would like to see explained.
The analogy would be the "95% of code is written by AI" stat that gets trotted out, replacing code with image evaluation. Yes AI will write the code but someone has to tell the AI what to write which is the tricky part.
This is a very binary way of thinking about it. More usual is that components of many professions are mechanical and can be automated, while other components are not mechanical and thus harder to automate. Regardless, if some % of the mechanical work goes away, it is unlikely that human workers just work less. Instead, they will work just as much and the overall demand for workers is reduced by %
[0] https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en-us/radiotherapy/soft...
It's really not a matter of "full replacement or bust".
Curious -- do you think that is because
1. the technology isnt there, or
2. because it isnt a competitive market (basically, the American Board of Radiologists controls standards of practice and can slow down technologies seen as competitive to human doctors)?
3. or perhaps 1 doesnt happen because outsiders know the market is guarded by the market itsself?
If I had to pay $500 or whatever to get a scan, and instead I could get my data, send it to a model and only follow up if it came back bad, I would. But now someone else pays and there are laws and regulations that prevent people from controlling their data, or at least make it difficult. Kind of weird I have a file on me that I have never seen.
Still not clear that the already superhuman capabilities of AI won't still fully supplement radiologist interpretive skills with every additional bit of training data that comes in.
Wonder what other forecasts of doom he is wrong about :|.
It does not have common sense.
Do you have any links to research or work being done on computer vision that leads you to this conclusion? Would love to check it out!
The most recent of which you mentioned, Transformers, is used by both LLMs and image synthesis/understanding. The parent posits that while computer vision lags behind NLP, this may not continue. While your comment points out that image synthesis and understanding has improved over time, I'm not sure I follow the argument that it may soon leapfrog or even catch up with LLMs (i.e. text understanding and synthesis.)
Which gives credence to your theory that people aren't bringing much to the table.
Now think about how much of software development is typing out the code vs talking to people, getting a clear definition of the problem, debugging, etc. (I would love an LLM that could debug problems in production — but all they can do is tell me stuff I already know). Then layer on that there are far more ideas for what should be built than you have time to actually build in every organization I’ve ever worked in.
I’m not worried about my job. I’m more worried my coworkers won’t realize what a great tool this is and my company will be left in the dust.
Let's say a major healthcare leak occurred, involving millions of images and associated doctor notes, diagnostics, etc... would this help advance the field or is it some algorithmic issue?
In order to "crack" radiology, the AI companies would need to launch an enormous data collection program involving thousands of hospitals across the world. Every time you got an MRI or X-Ray, you would sign some disclosure form that allowed your images to be anonymously submitted to the central data repository. This kind of project is very easy to describe, but very difficult to execute.
Everyday I see something on a scan yhat I've never seen before. And, possibly, no one has ever seen before. There is tremendous variation in human anatomy and pathology.
So what do I do? I use general intelligence. I talk to the patient. I talk to the referring doctor. I compare with other studies, across modalities and time.
I reason. I synthesize. I think.
So my point is, basically, radiology takes AGI.
Even a tiny hospital with radiology services will produce many thousands of images with accompanying descriptions every year. And you are allowed to anonymize and do research on these things in many places as neither image nor accompanying description is a personal identifier.
So this is yet another Hinton-ish prediction, any time soon radiologist are going dodo. This time LLMs will crack the nut that image recognition have failed at for 20 years.
Where LLMs have succeeded is in doing hot takes that miss the mark, they should be really good at cornering the "prematurely predicting demise of radiologist"-market
The example in the article is an in house developed "A.I." to help radiologists assess images. Digging a bit deeper it seems they are using mostly old CNN type architectures with a few million parameters.[1]
I think it still remains to be seen what a 1T+ parameter transformer trained specifically for radiology will do. I think anyone would be confident that a locally run CNN will not hold a candle to it.
[1]https://mayo-radiology-informatics-lab.github.io/MIDeL/index...
Does image processing of something like this scale with parameters?
It makes sense that language continues to scale as the vector space is huge. Even models that generate images scale as the problem space is so large.
But here there are only so many pixels in the image and they are a lot more uniform. You likely can't have 1T images to train on, so wouldn't the model just overfit and basically memorize every image it has ever seen?
Let's assume for now that it's true that AI can't do a certain subset of your work. Your profession won't be eliminated from the earth, that's true. But if 80% of your work can be done by AI, 80% of your work will be done by AI. There will still be humans kept around for that remaining 20%, but fewer of them will be needed.
Also, many radiologists do interventional procedures directly with patients. We're a long, long way from being able to significantly automate that work.
https://www.owlposting.com/p/what-happened-to-pathology-ai-c...
> One pathology AI founder told me that it wasn’t hospitals or diagnostic labs that showed the most promise. It was R&D groups within Big Pharma. Those scientists and executives wanted new tooling. They were often sitting on massive internal datasets, had real budget allocated to experimental tech, and — critically — had a clear ROI if your model helped shave months off a study or more precisely target the right patient cohort. Most importantly, pharma didn’t care as much about the regulatory headaches, as they weren’t using your model to diagnose patients
Honestly this doesn't surprise me, considering the quality of the average doctor.
I really think we were doing things the “right way” before I left: providing AI analyses from various vendors as overlays for slides, and being able to pre-flag slides with obvious cases of cancer or other infection. (These analyses typically being custom algorithms provided by vendors through APIs we collaborate on, not LLM output.)
With things like this simply built into an existing, established pathology platform, I’m pretty confident a team of 4-5 pathologists could do the work of 6-8, with better quality output, similar to how Copilot and other tooling speeds us up as developers. At $300-400k/yr/doctor, that’s considerable savings (and the opportunity to allocate more doctors in specialties that aren’t easily automated).
However, for lots of reasons, it seems the market doesn’t necessarily agree with me on the value potential of this approach in this field (which can certainly be a self-fulfilling prophecy).
voxadam•4h ago