Machine Learning , some thoughts

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at openehr.org
Mon Jun 25 06:31:27 EDT 2018



On 25/06/2018 11:21, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
> 82% of correct recognition rate is a desaster in healthcare.

92% would be a disaster in healthcare ...

> 74% is even worse.
>
> My evidence based feeling is that we still will need to sort it out 
> manually for some years to come.

I am slightly more optimistic: I suspect that the key bit of research is 
to create machines, e.g. for interpreting images, that can accurately 
distinguish between 3 /categories/ of image: don't know; not sure (error 
rate likely to be too high); and sure (e.g. less than 0.2% error rate or 
similar). Such machines would throw images in the first two groups to 
humans, and would do the work on the 'sure' group. The key is to be able 
to recognise ambiguity or the lack of it.

Doing this properly might require more than one kind of AI. And of 
course, AI image interpreters would not need to work with displayed bit 
maps, but would work with computable 3-D and 4-D matrices.

- thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20180625/86ec4d96/attachment.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list