Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2026

Why most AI healthcare applications are misconceived

From the text:

Yet decades of transactional, episodic, payment-driven infrastructure undermined the patient–physician relationship at the center of health.

Financing models have stripped Primary Care form its primary role.

That said, Healthcare AI will not be won on automation. Winners will likely optimize for three things simultaneously:

  • Outcomes
  • Experience — patient and physician
  • Economic impact on total cost of care long term

But most healthcare AI investments are mispriced because they target short term transactional efficiency, not long term strategic value creation.

I'm thinking that Ribitzky's need to interpreted in terms of idolatry. Why? Because they reduce humans to mechanisms to be optimized rather than being cared-for.

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

From the NYTimes: Vaccines canceled, enough nukes, the Rationalist religion

Vaccines canceled: Apoorva Mandavilli, Kennedy Cancels Nearly $500 Million in mRNA Vaccine Contracts, Aug. 5, 2025:

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has canceled nearly $500 million of grants and contracts for developing mRNA vaccines, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Tuesday.

It is the latest blow to research on this technology. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services revoked a nearly $600 million contract to the drugmaker Moderna to develop a vaccine against bird flu.

The new cancellations dismayed scientists, many of whom regard mRNA shots as the best option for protecting Americans in a pandemic.

“This is a bad day for science,” said Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has been working to develop an mRNA vaccine against influenza.

No more nukes: Terumi Tanaka, Eighty Years of Nuclear Weapons Is Enough, Aug. 6, 2025.

Today, the nuclear taboo is on the verge of collapse. The current wars in Europe and the Middle East involving nuclear-armed states, in which there are strong grounds for believing international law is being violated on a regular basis, and threats by the belligerents to use nuclear weapons are weakening the taboo over deploying them. India and Pakistan thankfully did not use their nuclear arsenals in a recent conflict, but the skirmish reminded us how wars between nuclear powers can happen.

Our Nobel Peace Prize sends a message to younger people that they need to be aware that we are facing an emergency — and the need to see a larger movement of young activists working to address the nuclear threat. Even here in Japan, not enough people see this as a pressing issue.

We have the solution in our hands: the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty not only bans nuclear weapons and all activities related to their production, deployment and use, but also mandates that countries that joined the treaty provide support for people harmed by nuclear weapons in the past and for the cleanup of areas that were used for nuclear testing.

Rationalist religion: Cade Metz, The Rise of Silicon Valley’s Techno-Religion, Aug. 4, 2025.

In downtown Berkeley, an old hotel has become a temple to the pursuit of artificial intelligence and the future of humanity. Its name is Lighthaven.

Covering much of a city block, this gated complex includes five buildings and a small park dotted with rose bushes, stone fountains and neoclassical statues. Stained glass windows glisten on the top floor of the tallest building, called Bayes House after an 18th-century mathematician and philosopher.

Lighthaven is the de facto headquarters of a group who call themselves the Rationalists. This group has many interests involving mathematics, genetics and philosophy. One of their overriding beliefs is that artificial intelligence can deliver a better life if it doesn’t destroy humanity first. And the Rationalists believe it is up to the people building A.I. to ensure that it is a force for the greater good. [...]

Many of the A.I. world’s biggest names — including Shane Legg, a co-founder of Google’s DeepMind; Anthropic’s chief executive, Dario Amodei; and Paul Christiano, a former OpenAI researcher who now leads safety work at the U.S. Center for A.I. Standards and Innovation — have been influenced by Rationalist philosophy. Elon Musk, who runs his own A.I. company, said that many of the community’s ideas align with his own. [...]

But these tech industry leaders stop short of calling themselves Rationalists, often because that label has over the years invited ridicule. [...]

“Religion is text and story and ritual,” said Ilia Delio, a Franciscan sister and professor of theology at Villanova University. “All of that applies here.”

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

A doctor comments on Microsoft's new medical diagnosis AI

Thursday, June 12, 2025

Sexual activity is associated with a lower risk of mortality from all-cause and cancer.

Chao Cao, Lin Yang, Tianlin Xu, Patricia A. Cavazos-Rehg, Qinran Liu, Daragh McDermott, Nicola Veronese, Thomas Waldhoer, Petre Cristian Ilie, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Lee Smith, Trends in Sexual Activity and Associations with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among US Adults, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Volume 17, Issue 10, October 2020, Pages 1903–1913, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.05.028

Abstract

Background

Sexual activity can be referred to as a health behavior and may also act as an indicator of health status.

Aim

To evaluate temporal trends in sexual activity and to examine associations of sexual activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk.

Methods

We examined the trends and prevalence of sexual activity and association of sexual activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a nationally representative sample using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2016 and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2014 Linked Mortality File (through December 31, 2015).

Outcomes

All-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality.

Results

A total of 15,269 US adults (mean age, 39.1 years [standard error, 0.18 years]) were included in the trend analysis. In the 2015-2016 cycle, while 71.7% (95% CI, 67.7–75.7%) US adults aged 20-59 years engaged in sexual activity ≥ 12 times/year (monthly), only 36.1% (95% CI, 31.6–40.7%) of them engaged in sexual activity ≥ 52 times/year (weekly). Since the 2005–2006 cycle, the estimated prevalence of sexual activity, ≥52 times/year and ≥12 times/year, were both stable over time among overall and each age group (all P for trend >0.1). During a median follow-up of 5.7 years (range, 1–11 years) and 71,960 person-years of observation, among 12,598 participants with eligible information on mortality status, 228 deaths occurred, including 29 associated with cardiovascular disease and 62 associated with cancer. Overall, participants with higher sexual activity frequency were at a lower risk of all-cause death in a dose-response manner (P for trend = 0.020) during the follow-up period. In addition, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, cancer mortality, and other cause mortality among participants who had sex ≥52 times/year compared with those having sex 0–1 time/year were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.19 to 3.21), 0.31 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.84), and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.96), respectively.

Clinical Implications

Sexual activity appears to be a health indicator of all-cause and cancer mortality in US middle-aged adults.

Strengths & Limitations

Clear strengths of the present study include the large representative sample of the noninstitutionalized US population as well as the identification of precise estimates in relation to sexual activity and mortality. However, because of the observational nature of the study design, causality could not be determined.

Conclusions

Sexual activity was found to be associated with a lower risk of mortality from all cause and cancer.

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Are radiologists here to stay? Yes.

Steve Lohr, Your A.I. Radiologist Will Not Be With You Soon, NYTimes, May 14, 2025.

Nine years ago, one of the world’s leading artificial intelligence scientists singled out an endangered occupational species.

“People should stop training radiologists now,” Geoffrey Hinton said, adding that it was “just completely obvious” that within five years A.I. would outperform humans in that field.

Today, radiologists — the physician specialists in medical imaging who look inside the body to diagnose and treat disease — are still in high demand. A recent study from the American College of Radiology projected a steadily growing work force through 2055.

Dr. Hinton, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics last year for pioneering research in A.I., was broadly correct that the technology would have a significant impact — just not as a job killer.

That’s true for radiologists at the Mayo Clinic, one of the nation’s premier medical systems, whose main campus is in Rochester, Minn. There, in recent years, they have begun using A.I. to sharpen images, automate routine tasks, identify medical abnormalities and predict disease. A.I. can also serve as “a second set of eyes.”

“But would it replace radiologists? We didn’t think so,” said Dr. Matthew Callstrom, the Mayo Clinic’s chair of radiology, recalling the 2016 prediction. “We knew how hard it is and all that is involved.”

Computer scientists, labor experts and policymakers have long debated how A.I. will ultimately play out in the work force. Will it be a clever helper, enhancing human performance, or a robotic surrogate, displacing millions of workers?

The debate has intensified as the leading-edge technology behind chatbots appears to be improving faster than anticipated. Leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies in Silicon Valley now predict that A.I. will eclipse humans in most cognitive tasks within a few years. But many researchers foresee a more gradual transformation in line with seismic inventions of the past, like electricity or the internet.

The predicted extinction of radiologists provides a telling case study. So far, A.I. is proving to be a powerful medical tool to increase efficiency and magnify human abilities, rather than take anyone’s job.

When it comes to developing and deploying A.I. in medicine, radiology has been a prime target. Of the more than 1,000 A.I. applications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in medicine, about three-fourths are in radiology. A.I. typically excels at identifying and measuring a specific abnormality, like a lung lesion or a breast lump. [...]

Predictions that A.I. will steal jobs often “underestimate the complexity of the work that people actually do — just as radiologists do a lot more than reading scans,” said David Autor, a labor economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Note well:

Dr. Halamka, an A.I. optimist, believes the technology will transform medicine.

“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.”

Dr. Hinton agrees. In retrospect, he believes he spoke too broadly in 2016, he said in an email. He didn’t make clear that he was speaking purely about image analysis, and was wrong on timing but not the direction, he added.

There's more at the link.

Monday, April 7, 2025

Epilepsy and AI: From seizure prediction to personalized medicine

Majd A. AbuAlroba, Adham Itbaishab, Boulenouar Mesraouaa, Unlocking new frontiers in epilepsy through AI: From seizure prediction to personalized medicine, Epilepsy & Behavior, Volume 166, 110327, May 2025

Highlights

  • AI in Epilepsy Care: AI enhances seizure detection, personalized treatment, and diagnostic accuracy via ML/DL.
  • Automated Analysis: CNNs/RNNs streamline EEG and imaging analysis, boosting diagnostic precision.
  • Precision Medicine: Tailored ASM regimens and predictive modeling reduce trial-and-error in care.
  • Advanced AI Integration: Explainable AI, data augmentation, and federated learning improve model transparency.
  • Ethics & Future: Robust ethical, regulatory, and innovative frameworks drive safe AI adoption in neurology.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing epilepsy care by advancing seizure detection, enhancing diagnostic precision, and enabling personalized treatment. Machine learning and deep learning technologies improve seizure monitoring, automate EEG analysis, and facilitate tailored therapeutic strategies, addressing the complexities of epilepsy management. However, challenges remain, including issues of model accuracy, interpretability, and applicability across diverse patient populations. Ethical considerations, such as safeguarding patient privacy, ensuring data security, and mitigating algorithmic bias, underscore the importance of responsible AI integration. Collaborative efforts among neurologists, data scientists, and regulatory authorities are critical to refining models, establishing ethical guidelines, and ensuring safe clinical adoption. This review examines AI’s transformative potential, its current limitations, and the multidisciplinary initiatives driving its effective implementation in epilepsy care.

Thursday, April 3, 2025

Generative AI Chatbot for Mental Health Treatment

Michael V. Heinz, Daniel M. Macklin, Brianna M. Trudeau, et al., Randomized Trial of a Generative AI Chatbot for Mental Health Treatment, The New England Journal of Medicine, VOL. 2 NO. 4, March 27, 2025, DOI: 10.1056/AIoa2400802

Abstract

Background

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) chatbots hold promise for building highly personalized, effective mental health treatments at scale, while also addressing user engagement and retention issues common among digital therapeutics. We present a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing an expert–fine-tuned Gen-AI–powered chatbot, Therabot, for mental health treatment.

Methods

We conducted a national, randomized controlled trial of adults (N=210) with clinically significant symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), or at clinically high risk for feeding and eating disorders (CHR-FED). Participants were randomly assigned to a 4-week Therabot intervention (N=106) or waitlist control (WLC; N=104). WLC participants received no app access during the study period but gained access after its conclusion (8 weeks). Participants were stratified into one of three groups based on mental health screening results: those with clinically significant symptoms of MDD, GAD, or CHR-FED. Primary outcomes were symptom changes from baseline to postintervention (4 weeks) and to follow-up (8 weeks). Secondary outcomes included user engagement, acceptability, and therapeutic alliance (i.e., the collaborative patient and therapist relationship). Cumulative-link mixed models examined differential changes. Cohen’s d effect sizes were unbounded and calculated based on the log-odds ratio, representing differential change between groups.

Results

Therabot users showed significantly greater reductions in symptoms of MDD (mean changes: −6.13 [standard deviation {SD}=6.12] vs. −2.63 [6.03] at 4 weeks; −7.93 [5.97] vs. −4.22 [5.94] at 8 weeks; d=0.845–0.903), GAD (mean changes: −2.32 [3.55] vs. −0.13 [4.00] at 4 weeks; −3.18 [3.59] vs. −1.11 [4.00] at 8 weeks; d=0.794–0.840), and CHR-FED (mean changes: −9.83 [14.37] vs. −1.66 [14.29] at 4 weeks; −10.23 [14.70] vs. −3.70 [14.65] at 8 weeks; d=0.627–0.819) relative to controls at postintervention and follow-up. Therabot was well utilized (average use >6 hours), and participants rated the therapeutic alliance as comparable to that of human therapists.

Conclusions

This is the first RCT demonstrating the effectiveness of a fully Gen-AI therapy chatbot for treating clinical-level mental health symptoms. The results were promising for MDD, GAD, and CHR-FED symptoms. Therabot was well utilized and received high user ratings. Fine-tuned Gen-AI chatbots offer a feasible approach to delivering personalized mental health interventions at scale, although further research with larger clinical samples is needed to confirm their effectiveness and generalizability. (Funded by Dartmouth College; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06013137.)

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Peer review penalizes scientific risk taking.

Pierre Azoulay & Wesley H. Greenblatt, Does Peer Review Penalize Scientific Risk Taking? Evidence from NIH Grant Renewals, NBER Working Papers, February 2025.

Scientific projects that carry a high degree of risk may be more likely to lead to breakthroughs yet also face challenges in winning the support necessary to be carried out. We analyze the determinants of renewal for more than 100,000 R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health between 1980 and 2015. We use four distinct proxies to measure risk taking: extreme tail outcomes, disruptiveness, pivoting from an investigator’s prior work, and standing out from the crowd in one’s field. After carefully controlling for investigator, grant, and institution characteristics, we measure the association between risk taking and grant renewal. Across each of these measures, we find that risky grants are renewed at markedly lower rates than less risky ones. We also provide evidence that the magnitude of the risk penalty is magnified for more novel areas of research and novice investigators, consistent with the academic community’s perception that current scientific institutions do not motivate exploratory research adequately.

H/t Tyler Cowen.

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Artificial therapy [an indicator of social dysfunction]

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Claude 3.5 on the Origins of Psychotherapy

Another nod to my series of reflections on melancholy and creativity, which started with an article in 3 Quarks Daily: Melancholy and Growth: Toward a Mindcraft for an Emerging World. This time I’m chasing down the origins of psychotherapy. I knew it didn’t start with Freud, but that’s how I started the questioning. The led to mesmerism and then to Breuer, both of which I had known about at one time, but had forgotten.

Then I jumped ahead to the mid-20th century and asked about John Bowlby. He is the originator of attachment theory. I’d learned about his work during my undergraduate years at Johns Hopkins when I did an independent study with Dr. Mary Ainsworth, who had worked with Bowlby and had done pioneering work on attachment herself.

* * * * *

Did psychotherapy start with Freud?

No, psychotherapy actually predates Sigmund Freud by several decades, though he certainly revolutionized the field. The foundations of modern psychotherapy can be traced back to the late 18th century.

Franz Anton Mesmer introduced early forms of psychological treatment in the 1770s through his theory of "animal magnetism," though his methods were controversial. In the 1840s, James Braid developed more scientific approaches to hypnotherapy, establishing it as a legitimate therapeutic technique.

The real breakthrough came with Josef Breuer in the 1880s. His "talking cure" treatment of Anna O. laid the groundwork for modern psychotherapy. This case significantly influenced the young Freud, who worked closely with Breuer before developing his own psychoanalytic methods in the 1890s.

What distinguished Freud's contribution was his systematic approach to understanding the unconscious mind and his development of specific therapeutic techniques. He introduced revolutionary concepts like free association, dream analysis, and the structural model of the psyche. While these ideas have been extensively critiqued and modified over time, they fundamentally shaped how we think about psychological treatment.

Therefore, while Freud didn't invent psychotherapy, he transformed it from a relatively narrow set of practices into a comprehensive approach to understanding and treating mental health conditions. His work became the foundation upon which many modern therapeutic approaches were built, even those that ultimately rejected his specific theories.

OK, so we start with hypnotism in the 18th century, then Breuer introduces the “talk cure” in the 1880s. Tell me more about Breuer. What was his training? What prompted him to the talking cure?

Josef Breuer (1842-1925) was a distinguished Viennese physician who came to psychotherapy through an unconventional path. His primary training was in internal medicine and physiology at the Vienna University Medical School, where he graduated in 1864. His early research focused on the physiology of breathing and the function of the inner ear, establishing him as a respected medical researcher.

The pivotal case that led to his development of the talking cure involved Bertha Pappenheim (known in case literature as Anna O.), whom he treated from 1880 to 1882. Pappenheim presented with severe symptoms including paralysis, personality changes, and language difficulties. What began as conventional medical treatment evolved when Breuer noticed that allowing her to talk freely about her symptoms and experiences seemed to provide relief.

This discovery was largely serendipitous. Breuer observed that when Pappenheim was in a hypnotic state, she would speak about events and emotions connected to the onset of her various symptoms. After these talking sessions, her symptoms would temporarily improve. This pattern led him to develop what Pappenheim herself termed "the talking cure."

The case took a significant toll on Breuer professionally and personally. He became deeply involved in Pappenheim's treatment, dedicating extensive time to her care. Eventually, he terminated the treatment rather abruptly when the therapeutic relationship became complicated by what we would now recognize as transference issues.

Breuer's collaboration with the younger Freud resulted in their 1895 publication "Studies on Hysteria," which laid the foundation for psychoanalysis. However, Breuer ultimately distanced himself from this work and returned to his conventional medical practice, leaving Freud to develop psychoanalysis further.

The significance of Breuer's contribution lies in his recognition that psychological symptoms could be alleviated through verbalization of experiences and emotions, a principle that remains fundamental to modern psychotherapy.

Were there others besides Freud?

Yes, several significant figures helped establish modern psychotherapy alongside and after Freud. Three key pioneers particularly stand out for their contributions in the early 20th century:

Carl Jung developed analytical psychology after breaking from Freud in 1913. His approach emphasized the collective unconscious, archetypes, and psychological development throughout life. As Freud's former protégé, Jung expanded psychological theory beyond sexual drives to include spiritual and mystical dimensions of human experience.

Alfred Adler, another early colleague of Freud, established individual psychology. He focused on how feelings of inferiority and the drive for superiority influence human behavior. His work emphasized social interest and community feeling as crucial for mental health, marking a significant departure from Freud's more individualistic approach.

Karen Horney challenged Freud's views on female psychology and developed her own theory of neurosis. She emphasized cultural and social factors in psychological development, particularly how childhood experiences shape personality. Her work in the 1920s and 1930s helped establish a more socially-oriented approach to psychotherapy.

Monday, January 6, 2025

Doctors need a transition ritual to get into “medical head”

Stephen G. Flynn, Raymond S. Park, Pete G. Kovatsis and Anupam B. Jena, The Hack Doctors Should Take From Pop Stars and Quarterbacks, NYTimes, Jan. 6, 2025.

Imagine a pro quarterback stepping onto the field without his coach running pregame drills or a pop star taking the stage without vocal warm-ups. In sports and music, such last-minute preparation is generally nonnegotiable. Coaches review and refine performance, address weaknesses and ensure readiness.

Yet in medicine, where the stakes are often life or death, the idea of warming up with a coach before performing a high-stakes medical procedure is virtually nonexistent.

Pre-operative coaching:

Our findings were striking. Coaching inexperienced clinicians within an hour of intubating an infant significantly improved success rates. The coached group placed the breathing tube in the infant’s windpipe on the first attempt over 91 percent of the time, compared to nearly 82 percent in the control group.

Intubating a baby on the first attempt is a crucial patient safety metric. Infants are particularly vulnerable during intubation because the oxygen levels in their blood can rapidly fall, which creates time pressure and increases the clinician’s mental effort. Studies consistently show a higher probability of low oxygen with more than one intubation attempt, and respiratory events are a leading cause of brain damage and death, an important source of malpractice claims for young children.

Clinicians who received coaching within an hour of performing intubation could not only intubate infants on the first attempt more often, but the intubations proceeded more quickly and more safely. For example, coached clinicians reported improved ability to see the larynx, which predicts greater ease in placing the breathing tube in the right place. The coached group also reported significantly lower mental effort while intubating, which is vital because high cognitive strain while performing a procedure can increase errors.

The importance of ritual:

Warm-ups with expert coaches are standard in music, sports and even military operations. Research suggests they sharpen focus, reduce errors and build confidence. Admittedly, integrating this approach into the fast-paced and cost-conscious world of medicine isn’t without difficulties. Critics may worry about the time required or the potential disruption to work flow. However, warm-up and coaching in our study took just minutes.

And it helps in the transition from an everyday walk-around mindset to the more focused mindset needed for performing a medical procedure.

There's more at the link.

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Weight loss, bariatric surgery, and the new drugs

Time stamps:

00:00 Intro
01:06 Set Point Theory
11:24 Calories In / Calories Out
18:47 Biggest Hurdles To Weight Loss
23:05 What Is Bariatric Surgery?
30:10 Success Rates
36:08 BMI
40:50 My 600 Pound Life
48:22 Side Effects of Surgery / Patient Satisfaction
54:23 Ozempic vs. Surgery
1:06:42 Life After Ozempic
1:10:28 Is Ozempic Unethical?
1:15:18 Food Addiction / Muscle Loss
1:18:05 The Process / Misconceptions
1:25:35 Innovation / Motivation

Will Medicare cover the new GLP-1 weight-loss drugs?

Margot Sanger-Katz, Obesity Drugs Would Be Covered by Medicare and Medicaid Under Biden Proposal, NYTimes, Nov. 26, 2024.

The Biden administration, in one of its last major policy directives, proposed on Tuesday that Medicare and Medicaid cover obesity medications, a costly and probably popular move that the Trump administration would need to endorse to become official.

The proposal would extend access of the drugs to millions of Americans who aren’t covered now.

The new obesity drugs, including Wegovy from Novo Nordisk and Zepbound from Eli Lilly, have been shown to improve health in numerous ways, but legislation passed 20 years ago prevents Medicare from covering drugs for “weight loss.”

The new proposal sidesteps that restriction, specifying that the drugs would be covered to treat the disease of obesity and prevent its related conditions.

“We don’t want to see people having to wait until they have these additional diseases before they get treatment,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or C.M.S., noting the growing medical consensus that obesity is a chronic health condition.

What will the Trump administration do?

Given Mr. Kennedy’s skepticism, and the new drugs’ potentially large cost, Trump officials might not have proposed a coverage requirement. But they may now face pressure to approve it.

Demand for the drugs is strong, and some Medicare beneficiaries are already taking them, even paying full price themselves. A recent survey from KFF, a health policy group, found that 61 percent of Americans support Medicare coverage for these drugs. The Biden administration’s proposal will set off a public comment period, in which doctors and patients will share their views on the decision with government officials.

There's more at the link.

Friday, November 22, 2024

It will be interesting to see how AI affects medical practice

Not too many years ago Geoffrey Hinton confidently predicted that radiologists would soon be replaced by AI. That didn't happen. But now...

The New York Times a small study (50 doctors, a mix of residents and attendings) in which ChatGPT-4 outperformed physicians in diagnosis based on a case report:

...doctors who were given ChatGPT-4 along with conventional resources did only slightly better than doctors who did not have access to the bot. And, to the researchers’ surprise, ChatGPT alone outperformed the doctors.

“I was shocked,” Dr. Rodman said.

The chatbot, from the company OpenAI, scored an average of 90 percent when diagnosing a medical condition from a case report and explaining its reasoning. Doctors randomly assigned to use the chatbot got an average score of 76 percent. Those randomly assigned not to use it had an average score of 74 percent.

The study showed more than just the chatbot’s superior performance.

It unveiled doctors’ sometimes unwavering belief in a diagnosis they made, even when a chatbot potentially suggests a better one.

Of course, reading an x-ray and analyzing a case report are very different activities. Still...

There's more at the link, including a brief look at INTERNIST-1, an old-school AI system developed in the 1970s for diagnosis. It's clear to me that AI his here to stay, in general, and certainly in medicine. What's not at all clear is just how it's going to be used. Obviously, that will change over time as AI capabilities develop. While thinking about that you might look at Hollis Robbins' post, AI and The Last Mile:

While we worry about AI replacing human judgment, the real story may be how AI is creating a market for that judgment as a luxury good, available only to those who can pay for the “last mile” of human insight. What do I mean by this?

The challenge of mail delivery from the post office to each home or from a communication hub to each individual end user is known as a “last mile” problem. In the paper newspaper era, the paper boy was the solution to the last mile problem, hawking papers on street corners or delivering papers house by house in the early morning before school. The postal carrier is a solution to the last mile problem. DoorDash is a solution to the last mile problem in the food business. [...]

What I’m calling “the last mile” here is the last 5-15% of exactitude or certainty in making a choice from data, for thinking beyond what an algorithm or quantifiable data set indicates, when you need something extra to assurance yourself you are making the right choice.

Friday, July 26, 2024

The art of misdirection – Giving shots to infants and toddlers

One day my YouTube feed presented me with this sort video. I was curious, so I watched it. It was quite remarkable.

This one is similar, but instead of giving a shot to a toddler, we see a doctor givine a shot to an infant.

Magicians and pickpockets also employ misdirection, through to achieve somewhat different ends.

Tuesday, July 2, 2024

Community in House, M.D. [Media Notes 135 B]

When I wrote yesterday’s post about House, M.D. I figured I might have more to say about it, but I didn’t have any explicit plans to do so. When I woke up this morning, I had an idea or two. These ideas center around community.

In this case we’re dealing with community on two levels. On the one level there’s the local community centered on our protagonist, Dr. Gregory House. This community includes his boss, Dr, Lisa Cuddy, his team of associates, Dr. Eric Foreman, Dr. Robert Chase, Dr. Allison Cameron, and his best friend, Dr. James Wilson. This local group then “shades out” through the hospital more generally. On another level there’s the community at large. This is where the patients come from. The hospital serves that community.

Illness and injury threaten that larger community. When a person is ill, they cannot participate fully in the community. When a person dies, the community is diminished. The hospital community exists to serve that larger community. The House-centered community operates within the hospital to serve that larger community.

The irony of the show is that at the center of this web of communal interactions we have an unpleasant misanthrope. House isn’t interested in the community. He’s interested in disease. What is the role of disease in the House community, if you will?

It structures their interactions, gives them purpose. In particular, differential diagnosis seems to be the central organizing activity in that local community. They meet, discuss and argue, and then go about their various tasks, usually assigned by House, who then may hang out in the office, while continuing to think, listen to music, watch TV, whatever. Those tasks will mostly take place elsewhere in hospital, though House’s associates will regularly venture outside the hospital to investigate patients’ homes and/or places of work.

The activity of differential diagnosis itself takes place through talk and writing on a white board. The talk is highly technical. I assume that it’s more or less technically correct, but I don’t know enough about medicine to judge that and I assume that’s true for most of the audience. What’s important is that we see the activity. We see investigation taking place. We experience diagnosis as a communal activity. How does this little community maintain itself in face of disease and under the pressure of the often at odds personalities of these doctors? That’s what we’re seeing. That’s what the show is about.

And then there’s serendipity. The process of differential diagnosis is driven by evidence, a patient’s symptoms and history, and by medical knowledge. And then there’s serendipity. Something accidental happens, someone notices something that might be totally unrelated to the case, but it sparks a train of thought the becomes relevant. Serendipity takes as to the edge of community, if not beyond it.

The upshot is that we see the social construction of truth, a construction that is tested in the process of treatment. The detective show does the same thing, but with a different set of procedures. We know that House was inspired in part by Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holms and we know that the character of Holms was based, in part, on that of a surgeon, Joseph Bell. So we’ve got a century’s worth of narrative history trailing behind House, M.D., with each title having its particular mix of ingredients. It’s my impression that most of the titles don’t focus on the process of reasoning as closely as House, M.D. does. But this is not the place to even begin to sketch out the coordinates of that space.

* * * * *

Addendum 7.3.24: I should have at least mentioned that, more often than not, the differential diagnosis is a race against death. Generally House and his team win the race, but not always. So, that’s what’s at stake in the various discussions about House’s disregard for procedures and dogged pursuit of the diagnosis. This is a show that forces us to confront and think about death.

Monday, July 1, 2024

What’s up with House, M.D.? [Media Notes 135]

House, M.D. has been on my to-do list for a couple of years. As you may know, it’s a medical drama than ran on Fox for eight seasons between 2004 and 2012. I watched it back then, and I watched in online since then. I’m now in the second season of rewatching it again.

I’ve got a simple question: What’s it about? Oh, I know, it’s about Dr. Gregory House who’s a world-class diagnostician at the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey. What makes it interesting is that House, while a very good diagnostician, is an unpleasant person. He’s rude, self-centered, difficult to get along with, and insists on doing things his way, which often puts him at odds both with accepted medical practice and with Princeton-Plainsboro. Nor is he particularly endearing with his patients. He’s also in chronic pain and, consequently, addicted to pain medication. Each episode is built around a single case, though there may be one or three simpler cases on the side.

Given such a thoroughly unpleasant central character, why was the series popular enough to run for eight seasons a get a bunch of awards? To be clear, I’m not questioning the merits of the show, after all, I’m now on my third time through. No, what I’m curious about is how it is that such a popular show could be built around such a thoroughly unlikable character?

Obviously, there wouldn’t be any show if House were incompetent. He had to have some redeeming quality, medical brilliance in this case. We’ve had medical dramas on TV since the fifties, and I’ve watched a bunch of them. I don’t recall any others where the protagonist was so unlikable and also of such a high level of competence. Those two things go together. Why?

Imagine another drama about a physician with House’s skills but who was more likeable, perhaps married as well, with a beautiful wife and cute children. That would be a very different show, and wouldn’t work. (Or would it?) We also need to emphasize that House is a fairly technical show in it features a lot of complex medical terms, some technology as well, and interior views of the body via special effects. There’s also the activity of differential diagnosis, which is on display 3, 4, 5, or more times during the show. That’s critical to the “texture” of the show. Off hand, the only precedent I can think of is CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a forensics crime show that ran from 2000 to 2015, was a huge hit, and spawned a spin-off and several imitators. It also featured technical terms, apparatus, procedures, reasoning, and special effects.

I’m thinking that, as American culture is fairly anti-intellectual, ambiguous at best, making the protagonist unpleasant and in pain is a way of taking the edge off his brilliance – Yeah, he’s super-smart, but he’s also an unhappy asshole! I’m not sure I believe that, though it’s been on my mind for a while. It probably needs a better formulation, but I don’t know how to do it, and I fear that it would likely require a bit of apparatus-building.

One final remark, while the unpleasant and tortured genius doctor is at the center of the show, there are other important figures as well: his (female) boss, the Dean of Medicine, his best (and only) buddy (an oncologist), and his three associates, who changed as the show went on. None of these people are unpleasant in the way House is. Getting a good mix of associated characters is certainly part of the formula, but that’s true for all TV shows, movies, dramas, or narratives. What are the specific requirements of “compensating” for a character like Dr. Gregory House?

* * * * *

Given the prominence of AI these days, I assume someone’s working on a show built around an AI doctor. I note that Star Trek: Voyager has already done it, with its holographic doctor. But when that show aired, 1995-2001, AI was purely conjectural. That’s no longer the case. And that changes everything, no?

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

Adam Savage swallows a camera robot

From the YouTube page:

This may be the smallest remote controlled robot we've covered on Tested. Adam visits the workshop of Endiatx, the makers of the Pillbot robotic endoscope that can swim around in your stomach to map and examine your insides. Adam swallows not just one, but two Pillbots during his visit and pilots the robots around his own stomach!

The first 18 minutes give you the background on the robot. The actual swallow starts about about 18:02.

Friday, May 3, 2024

Self-medicating orangutans, and others

Douglas Main, Orangutan, Heal Thyself, NYTimes, May 2, 2024.

Scientists observed a wild male orangutan repeatedly rubbing chewed-up leaves of a medicinal plant on a facial wound in a forest reserve in Indonesia.

It was the first known observation of a wild animal using a plant to treat a wound, and adds to evidence that humans are not alone in using plants for medicinal purposes.

The male orangutan, Rakus, lives in the Gunung Leuser National Park on the island of Sumatra and is thought to be around 35 years old. For years researchers have followed orangutans like him on his travels through the forest, threading his way through the canopy in search of fruits to eat. [...]

The plant Rakus used, known as akar kuning or yellow root, is also used by people throughout Southeast Asia to treat malaria, diabetes and other conditions. Research shows it has anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties.

Other uses, other animals:

Primates have been observed appearing to treat wounds in the past, but not with plants. [...]

Orangutans have been spotted using medicinal plants in a different way: In 2017 scientists reported that six orangutans in Borneo rubbed the chewed-up leaves of a shrub with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties onto their legs and arms, probably to soothe sore muscles. [...]

Examples of self-medication in primates remain uncommon and the behavior is incompletely understood. [...]

But that behavior is not unique to primates. Indian civets, a catlike mammal, also swallow whole leaves, most likely to be rid of worms. Various birds engage in a strange behavior, called anting, in which they rub themselves in ants, to help them treat feather mites or other parasites. Hundreds of species of bees also harvest flower extracts that prevent fungal and bacterial growth in their colonies, which could be considered a type of preventative self- or group-medication.

Presumably this is learned behavior that is passed on through observation – even among the bees?

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Michale Levin on bioelectricity, regeneration, cancer treatment

How bioelectricity could regrow limbs and organs, with Michael Levin (Ep. 112), Big Brains Podcast, UChicago News, April 27, 2023.

"Software" for the cells:

Paul Rand: It’s kind of mind-blowing in its own way. How do the cells have these memories, if that’s the right word?

Michael Levin: Well, I think it’s the right word. I think many people probably don’t think it’s the right word, but I think it’s exactly the right word. I think you’re right. It is mind-blowing because. look, each of us makes this journey from an unfertilized [inaudible 00:07:46], which is a little blob of chemicals. You look at that little blob of chemicals and you would say, “well, this is just physics. This is just chemistry. This thing doesn’t have any goals, any intelligence, you know, you name it.” And then eventually that little blob of chemistry turns into, nine months and some years later, it turns into a being that absolutely has an inner perspective, it has goals, it has preferences, it has behavioral [inaudible 00:08:13], and it will go on to say things like, “Well, I’m not a machine I’m a human being.” Okay, great.

What’s really important to realize is that this process of development, very robust, meaning consistent, so there’s this amazing ability for life to get to the correct outcome, meaning the correct target morphology for that species, despite all kinds of crazy things, multiple copy numbers of the DNA, more cells, less cells, bigger cells, they still figure out how to get it done.

So then it makes really a lot of sense to ask, “Okay, if you’re solving this problem, if you’re going to get to the same goal despite various things that could happen to you, what are you using to remember what that goal is? You’re navigating these spaces trying to get to the correct final outcome, but how do you know what that outcome is?”

Paul Rand: Levin thinks bioelectricity is the architect building the blueprint, so to speak.

Michael Levin: These pattern memories are encoded in the electrical network of the body of the early embryo and subsequent exactly in the way that we think of as memories about navigating three-dimensional space are encoded in the brain. Now, I should point out that we, of course, we don’t know exactly how memories are encoded in the brain. We still don’t know, and there are many mysteries about that in the body as well, but I think we should get really comfortable with the idea that electrical networks store memories, they store goal states and they facilitate these complex beings to navigate space to get to those goals.

Paul Rand: As you talk about this, it’s almost like the cells are like a hardware and the electrical patterns are almost the software. Is that a fair analogy?

Michael Levin: I think that’s a very fair analogy. A lot of people don’t like that analogy because they’re visualizing hardware and software the way that they think about their laptops. But what is really powerful about that notion and what makes that analogy work really well is the idea of reprogrammability. So what’s powerful about computers is that the exact same piece of hardware can do multiple things without rewiring. And so when I give talks about this, I ask people, “Why is it that on their computer when they want to switch from Photoshop to PowerPoint, they don’t get out their soldering iron and start rewiring?” Isn’t it amazing.

Regeneration, cancer treatment:

The bigger picture here is that currently the medical model that we currently have, one of the problems with it is that it’s fundamentally unsustainable for any, no matter how many resources we have, because every advance that we make to prolong the life of a patient ends up giving you a sicker patient, that’s the baseline for the next intervention. So the better you are at extending the last stages of the lifespan, the more expensive and more heroic the next measures have to be. Inevitably, the logic of it is inescapable. And so that’s a spiral. That’s a constant spiral that is fundamentally unavoidable and unsustainable for any society unless we figure out how to crank up the regenerative process very early on so that you never get to the stage of that sinking ship that you need to keep propping up. It means that you are not just chasing symptoms, you are fundamentally, and we can talk about what that is, but we need a completely different approach to medicine that leverages literally the intelligence of the body so that the regenerative process is happening all the time.

In addition to leg regeneration, two kind of flagship applications in our group have been, first of all, the repair of birth defects. And so we were able to show that a wide range of birth defects of the brain, heart, face, and gut induced either by genetic mutations or by chemicals, can be prevented by an appropriate bioelectrical treatment that was designed by a computational model. So there’s a computational model that tells you which ion channels you would need to turn on and off to make specific patterns. And so we’ve used that to repair birth defects in the frog model. The other side is the cancer side, and we started in frogs showing that if we understand cancer to be the breakdown of the electrical signaling that normally harnesses cells towards this common anatomical purpose, so when that breaks down, they simply roll back to their amoeba-like ancient lifestyle where they just al their goals are little tiny cell level goals, which means go wherever life is good, reproduce as much as you can. Then that’s metastasis. And so we were able to show that despite really nasty human oncogenes, we could suppress to or prevent correct tumor genesis by forcing the appropriate bioelectrical states. And we started this in frog, and we are now in human glioblastoma. So we’re working to try the same thing in glioblastoma.

There's more at the link.

H/t 3QD.