Hacker News Reader

Comment by mromanuk | Hacker News Reader

This is like taking your temperature at home, are you making a diagnostic yourself? Not quite. But you can know some symptoms and take action (going to the doctor) maybe with less anxiety

edit: grammar

View on HN

Thermometers are well understood, simple devices, and there are other complementary checks (e.g. does my forehead feel hot) if they fail.

This project might lead to people thinking they're in the clear and not seek appropriate medical treatment, or be overtreated due to an error. You should always talk to a qualified doctor if you're concerned about your health, and not use projects like these for decision making.

I don't see how a passive scan like this can be harmful . Ofcourse if it does show a positive one should confirm further with a biopsy or other standard confirmation diagnostic. As for false negatives... If you feel something is wrong you should get it checked thoroughly anyway .

So you should ignore it and see a doctor regardless.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. However, people aren't 100% rational agents motivated by logic.

My aunt was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis which led her to lose her eyesight from her left eye, because she refused to get a thorough checkup by a professional, and even today whenever I tell her that I visited the doctor for an issue she has... not very good words to say (something something "you are a chicken, you're hypochodriac etc). And I'm saying this without entertaining the probability of her visiting a professional who just happened to be in a bad day, which could potentialy lead to a wrong diagnosis.

I've been hunting down my own diagnosis for symptoms everyone seems to tell me that aren't serious (nail discoloration and a 24/7 headache that feels like my arteries are pulsing, which lasts for YEARS, cold fingertips during the winter, and more).

I get what you're trying to say and I agree with the general message. However, more checkpoints to catch a potential failure are good. For example, if someone were to make a take-at-home device which scans nailfold capillaries (no reason for something like that to exist) I'd get that in a heartbeat. I'm being actively ignored by every medical professional that I have visited, and if I'm not ignored they give the minimum amount of attention, kind of like "well, it's not like you're dying so who cares?"

Fair note: I'm from Europe.

If you don't feel good yes you should see a doctor regardless. Let's say you get a scan every year . If the scan is able to detect something earlier than a radiologist is able to identify i think it's worth paying attention to.

you literally just said the scan has no value. THe point of a scan like this is to have absurdly low false negative and positive rates so that it's actionable. Unactionable medical diagnostics are worthless and just cost (money, fuel, time).

There are more costs, like others have described it might lead to unnecessary biopty that has real risks.

I agree with you, but what's most important is the impression that the average person who uses it will have. And I don't think most people would think of this as like "taking your temperature at home". I think most people who might upload their x-ray scans would take this a lot more seriously.

A false positive could create a lot of anxiety and emotional distress, and the patient might need to go to 2, 3, or 4 other doctors to get second opinions before they feel comfortable that they really don't have cancer.

A false negative could be even worse. A patient might think "oh, the official-looking online thing said I don't have cancer, so I don't need to wait for or consider a human radiologist's results", and not believe they need treatment.

I think it's very important that people understand that -- until more research is done -- this is still not a substitute for having a human look at your x-rays. If we could be reasonably sure that everyone (or at least a very large majority) understood this when using this tool, then I think people would have far fewer objections. But I don't think that's the case.

Having said that, I think it's safe to assume that this tool has saved lives, so it's almost certainly been a net positive for people.

A thermometer mostly tells you if you have an infection, and how close you are to your body temperature becoming a medically urgent or life-threatening situation.

Not even remotely the same thing.

What's the chance of taking the wrong temperature though?

Pretty high, actually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com