zlacker

>>bondar+(OP)
> Screening for this disorder is simple: use a thermal camera and compare testicular temperature sitting up (or standing) versus lying down, in each case waiting five minutes or so for temperatures to equilibrate, and taping the penis up so that it does not affect the measurement.

Interesting. I wonder how many how many other issues we could screen for using such simple, low cost tools. Some scales can already detect reduced blood flow in the feet (which can be a sign of all sorts of nastiness).

>>elric+Dc
Stethoscopes are pretty cheap and versatile. Human doctors in general have lots of senses which they (in some medical systems) use for diagnosis before reaching for lab tests and MRTs.

>>eterna+8h
If they bother. The vast majority of appointments I’ve had, in recent memory, are the provider typing a bit on their laptop, then sending me to someone else.

>>bshack+vi
If you don't like your doctor, go to someone else

>>malfis+Cq1
Indeed but a tiring and expensive game when it takes 4-5 tries with experienced specialists to get an actual diagnosis.

>>BobbyT+1C1
One of the more exciting AI use-cases is that it should be about competent to handle the conversational parts of diagnosis; it should have read all the studies and so it'll be possible to spend an hour at home talking to an AI and then turn up at the doctor with a checklist of diagnostic work you want them to try.

A shorter amount of expensive time with a consultant is more powerful if there is a solid reference to play with for longer before hand.

>>roenxi+OK1
AI has a long way to go before it can serve as a trustworthy middleman between research papers and patients.

For instance, even WebMD might waste more time in doctor's offices than it saves, and that's a true, hallucination-free source, written specifically to provide lay-people with understandable information.

>>fwip+IM1
This study found that an LLM outperformed doctors "on a standardized rubric of diagnostic performance based on differential diagnosis accuracy, appropriateness of supporting and opposing factors, and next diagnostic evaluation steps, validated and graded via blinded expert consensus."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

>>istjoh+8Z1
This study is about doctors using an LLM and it doesn't seem like it made them significantly more accurate than doctors not using LLM.

>>pingou+0d2
If you look in the discussion section you'll find that wasn't exactly what the study ended up with. I'm looking at the paragraph starting:

> An unexpected secondary result was that the LLM alone performed significantly better than both groups of humans, similar to a recent study with different LLM technology.

They suspected that the clinicians were not prompting it right since the LLM without humans was observed to be outperforming the LLM with skilled operators.