Posted on 03/25/2025 3:59:17 PM PDT by Twotone
In what's expected to soon be commonplace, artificial intelligence is being harnessed to pick up signs of cancer more accurately than the trained human eye. This latest AI model has a near 100% success rate and serves as a clear sign of things to come.
An international team of scientists including those from Australia's Charles Darwin University (CDU) has developed a novel AI model known as ECgMPL, which can assess microscopic images of cells and tissue to identify endometrial cancer – one of the most common forms of reproductive tumors – with an impressive 99.26% accuracy. And the researchers say it can be adapted to identify a broad range of disease, including colorectal and oral cancer.
“The proposed ECgMLP model outperforms existing methods by achieving 99.26 percent accuracy, surpassing transfer learning and custom models discussed in the research while being computationally efficient,” said the study's co-author Dr. Asif Karim, from CDU. “Optimized through ablation studies, self-attention mechanisms, and efficient training, ECgMLP generalizes well across multiple histopathology datasets thereby making it a robust and clinically applicable solution for endometrial cancer diagnosis.”
What that science-speak means is that the well-trained model is able to look at these microscopic scans – histopathology images – and enhance image quality in order to identify early stages of cancer, homing in on certain areas of the scans to pinpoint problematic growth that may not be easily detected by the naked eye. Right now, current human-led diagnostic methods are around 78.91% to 80.93% accurate. Endometrial cancer is treatable and, if found in time, has a good five-year outcome for patients. However, once it spreads outside the uterus, it becomes difficult to effectively treat – which makes timely diagnosis critical in saving lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
I would enthusiastically support AI as a diagnostic tool available to patients for 2nd opinions...
...but I draw the line at AI making health decisions. Just sayin’.
Who hasn't tried to solve a problem, and then a coworker or neighbor offers a suggestion, and you say "thanks, I didn't think of that!".
I've pretty much given up on keeping track of health news because there is an overwhelming amount, day after day, year after year. It's not possible for me to separate the wheat from the chaff, and especially when there is so much contradictory "health news".
While I don’t put all of my trust in AI which is really programmed logic devised by a human or humans, I also have little faith in doctors who pushed experimental so-called vaccines on workers and useless masks and devastating shutdowns. If AI can detect cancer in it’s early stages, I’m all for it. AI can be either very beneficial or very destructive.
Grok has been better than several experts across several fields that I have dealt with over the past few years.
But you still have to have a Doctor who knows what they are doing to confirm..or in my case a radiologist who confirmed.
I have an old CT scan I am going to put through it to see if it catches something that they missed at the time and had to go back and correct report after I caught it.
It is shocking how much better GROK is than some of the “experts” I have seen.
“But you still have to have a Doctor who knows what they are doing to confirm..or in my case a radiologist who confirmed.”
What would your next step be if this new AI diagnostic tool was a solid “yes” WRT a cancer diagnosis but your doc said “no”?
I’ve heard some dogs are good at identifying cancer
My dentist used an AI system that found cavities that weren’t obvious from the x-ray.
I’m seeing Grok the same way. I have a very strong feeling give this device another year or two and it’s gonna be the only place to go for information. The beauty part about it for me is that it talks to you like you’re an intelligent adult. And it continues the conversation.
Within a year AI is going to put so many people out of business! I trust most doctors as far as I can throw my pickup truck.
I on the other hand, used AI to create a beautiful elf princess in a space station.
People who think they’re intellectually superior are going to be in for a rude awakening. Love it!
I went through that with a crazy thing when everyone thought I had ovarian cancer. What I went through was insane.
So the answer is MULTIPLE opinions and tests.
The AI pictures are a disappointment. I’ve tried a few Bible verses, and it messed it all up. Two, it refused to do.
This isn’t why AI is here.
In five to ten years AI is going to put a lot white collar type out of work.
Accountants, at least some doctors, lawyers, architects, computer programmers, and engineers, will all be replaced.
Degree holders will have to learn carpentry, plumbing, or buy a farm.
Hmmm... didn’t say what the AI study was compared to....oncological pathologist? Regular pathologist? General practitioner? Was it comparing simple eyeball test?
Since AI criteria is based on currently based ideas one has to know if AI Program is updated and tested daily, cause the programmers might be behind on current info.
I would guess current updated AI could pick up or remind practitioners of missed clues but is only as good as it’s programmers and quality of specimens.
IMHO.
My comment was a slam on ‘doctors’
I think that is reasonable where doctors are plenty.
Unfortunately, they’re not. Medical knowledge doesn’t change as fast as some other fields (e.g. software). Same with the law.
Because of this, I’d argue these fields, especially as they’re so expensive, should leverage AI to the fullest extent.
So long as the trained models get audited/tested regularly, they will exceed humans.
def has_cancer(patient: Patient) -> bool:
return True
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.