• MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well it’d certainly benefit the medical industry. They’d be saddling tons of patients with surgeries, chemotherapy, mastectomy, and other treatments, “because doctor-GPT said so.”

    But imagine being a patient getting physically and emotionally altered, plunged into irrecoverable debt, distressing your family, and it all being a whoopsy by some black-box software.

    • ???@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s a good point, that it could burden the system, but why would you ever put someone on chemotherapy for the model described in the paper? It seems more like it could burden the system by increasing the number of patients doing more frequent screening. Someone has to pay for all those docter-patient and meeting hours for sure. But the benefit outweighs this cost (which in my opinion is good and cheap since it prevents future treatment at later stages that are expensive).

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Biopsies are small but still invasive. There’s risk of infection or reactions to anesthesia in any surgery. If 100 million women get this test, a 5% false positive rate will mean 5 million unnecessary interventions. Not to mention the stress of being told you have cancer.

        5 million unnecessary interventions means a small percentage of those people (thousands) will die or be harmed by the treatment. That’s the harm that it causes.