Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Where are you getting these numbers? Even a cursory search doesn’t put the numbers anywhere near such poor performance by real people.

AI at 50% would be notably worse (also where are you getting that number?)



From radiologist AI training datasets, evaluated long-term/post-mortem.


Sauce or gtfo


I hate to be “source?” about it but your numbers are so far off what every search result is showing.


I am not saying those are for all diagnoses, but for some tricky yet important ones (i.e. detecting them early might save your life).


You did not give specificity of any kind until now, and now I’m even more curious where these numbers are coming from.


Some data (average radiologist score):

Early-Stage Lung Cancer (via Chest X-ray) 33.3%

Clinical Staging of Stage I Pancreatic Cancer (via CT, MRI, EUS) 21.6%

Breast Cancer (via Mammography in Dense Tissue) 30%

Cuneiform fractures (foot, X-Ray) 0%

Midfoot fractures (general, X-Ray) 12.5%

Cuboid fractures (X-Ray) 14.29%

Navicular fractures (X-Ray) 22.22%

Talus fractures (X-Ray) 21.43%

Individual radiologists often scored 5% in those as well. The skill distribution is brutal.


If your original argument was “it could be useful for more difficult/niche observations” then I think most of us wouldn’t have objected.

I also really don’t understand why you still aren’t sharing any links. Is this all LLM-generated without citations or something? Where are you getting your numbers?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: