I have an issue with this argument, although I don’t have much expertise in this field.
you talk about the legality of a patient directly buying radiology results from an AI company, but this isn’t a very plausible path of radiologists being replaced. People will still have to go to the hospital to get the actual radiology scans done.
The actual concern would be that hospitals get the radiology scans done by non-radiologists, and outsource the radiology results to an AI radiology company. I can’t really tell from your post whether this is illegal or not (if it is, what is the business model of these companies?). This process seems more like how automation will actually go in most fields, so it’s relevant if it’s not working for radiology.
And another point: one reason that this stuff may be illegal is that it doesn’t work well enough to be made legal. I think if this is partly the reason, that can absolutely be used as a point against the likelihood of AI automation.
Thanks! Perhaps I phrased this poorly; a person being a patient or not isn’t the relevant factor, it’s whether or not they are licensed. E.g. if you look at the FDA authorization for the first product it says:
The ContaCT mobile application is intended to be used by neurovascular specialists, such as vascular neurologists, neuro-interventional specialists, or users with similar training who have been pre-authorized by their Healthcare Organization or Facility.
I’m actually not sure whether one could generously interpret “similar training” to include e.g. radiology technicians. They wouldn’t be allowed to make diagnoses, and my guess is that the government would not look kindly on a rad tech saying something like “I’m not diagnosing you with a stroke, but the AI thinks you’ve had one, wink, wink,” but I’m not sure. Perhaps someone with more legal experience could chime in.
In any case, I’m skeptical that a business would want to run that malpractice risk (particularly since, as mentioned above, insurance wouldn’t reimburse them for doing so).
And yes, I agree that this probably means these products aren’t more clearly safe and effective than e.g. eyeglasses (where businesses are analogously legally prohibited from giving glasses to patients without a licensed human optometrist first performing an exam). It’s just worth considering that this is a very high bar![1]
Although I think maybe it’s more accurate to just say that medical device authorization is based on a bunch of factors that are largely unrelated to the safety and efficacy of the product. E.g. I think there’s no one who believes that cigarettes are safer than eyeglasses, despite them being available OTC.
Yeah as long as AI radiography interpretation isn’t covered by insurance, forget about it.
In general I think people massively underrate professional gate keeping in slowing down AI automation and economic takeover in general. Doctors have gatekept for ages, they will only double down here. Like in many situations, you will basically need the full consent of the people who’s jobs will be taken, for those jobs to be taken.… Good luck with that.
We’ve seen the first phase with Hollywood, drivers and Radiology but I think even bigger resistance will come. Why would you not fight tooth and nail agains AI when its your own livelihood at stake?
I have an issue with this argument, although I don’t have much expertise in this field.
you talk about the legality of a patient directly buying radiology results from an AI company, but this isn’t a very plausible path of radiologists being replaced. People will still have to go to the hospital to get the actual radiology scans done.
The actual concern would be that hospitals get the radiology scans done by non-radiologists, and outsource the radiology results to an AI radiology company. I can’t really tell from your post whether this is illegal or not (if it is, what is the business model of these companies?). This process seems more like how automation will actually go in most fields, so it’s relevant if it’s not working for radiology.
And another point: one reason that this stuff may be illegal is that it doesn’t work well enough to be made legal. I think if this is partly the reason, that can absolutely be used as a point against the likelihood of AI automation.
Thanks! Perhaps I phrased this poorly; a person being a patient or not isn’t the relevant factor, it’s whether or not they are licensed. E.g. if you look at the FDA authorization for the first product it says:
I’m actually not sure whether one could generously interpret “similar training” to include e.g. radiology technicians. They wouldn’t be allowed to make diagnoses, and my guess is that the government would not look kindly on a rad tech saying something like “I’m not diagnosing you with a stroke, but the AI thinks you’ve had one, wink, wink,” but I’m not sure. Perhaps someone with more legal experience could chime in.
In any case, I’m skeptical that a business would want to run that malpractice risk (particularly since, as mentioned above, insurance wouldn’t reimburse them for doing so).
And yes, I agree that this probably means these products aren’t more clearly safe and effective than e.g. eyeglasses (where businesses are analogously legally prohibited from giving glasses to patients without a licensed human optometrist first performing an exam). It’s just worth considering that this is a very high bar![1]
Although I think maybe it’s more accurate to just say that medical device authorization is based on a bunch of factors that are largely unrelated to the safety and efficacy of the product. E.g. I think there’s no one who believes that cigarettes are safer than eyeglasses, despite them being available OTC.
Yeah as long as AI radiography interpretation isn’t covered by insurance, forget about it.
In general I think people massively underrate professional gate keeping in slowing down AI automation and economic takeover in general. Doctors have gatekept for ages, they will only double down here. Like in many situations, you will basically need the full consent of the people who’s jobs will be taken, for those jobs to be taken.… Good luck with that.
We’ve seen the first phase with Hollywood, drivers and Radiology but I think even bigger resistance will come. Why would you not fight tooth and nail agains AI when its your own livelihood at stake?