Hacker News Reader

Comment by devy | Hacker News Reader

Yep! CT scans and clinician's experience is more reliable than any tests for COVID-19 diagnostics (which should only serving as a definitive confirmation). This also why I believe human doctors are still unbeatable by AI

View on HN

I remember an article early in the outbreak that Chinese doctors found the most reliable diagnosis comes from CT scans. Test was merely the first filter. They tuned the settings to increase scan speed at the cost of resolution and setup a process to scan up to 200 patients a day per scanner. I wonder if this is still best practice that other countries aren't adopting. On the other hand I expect tests to have improved since the early days. There's also the consideration China simply had more CT scanners that could be mobilized to Wuhan which makes this less practical elsewhere.

My doctor friend who got the minutes of a call with a chinese doctor said they were also swabbing multiple areas of the body for PCR and doing an antibody screen as well (in addition to CT).

I think that's missing the point, which is that the only way to get the necessary accuracy is to use multiple independent sources of information. It's not whether clinicians are better than tests or vice versa, but that no single datum is good enough.

No. The point is, COVID-19 testing kit is in extreme short supply everywhere in the world right now given most countries are locked down and the viral outbreak patients are growing at an exponential rate, the next reliable way to diagnose COVID-19 for clinicians without testing kits is to use CT (which gets results fast and inexpensive and the equipment is universally accessible in every hospital) scans and find some patterns, which is exactly what doctors in Wuhan did during the early phase of the outbreak[1].

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32134681

Well, that's your point, but I think everyone knows the tests are scarce.

> This also why I believe human doctors are still unbeatable by AI.

Because you hypothesize that they can rapidly learn new, not very distinctive patterns without much data?

> hypothesize

Of course not! We've got half a million cases now, hundreds of thousands cases in hospitals, and hundreds of papers published in all the medical journals. So yeah, data is rich.

I was mainly referring to CT scan data. A symptomatic check should not require much experience, rather applying the knowledge in form of a simple decision tree.

Regarding CT scans .. machine learning will be so much better than humans in classifying those once enough data is available... it‘s completely out of question for me as an ML researcher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com