Good luck finding a doctor in the future

[koquerelle]

Very true. The US is snatching all our doctors because they pay much, much more.

I have a series of health issues at the moment and don't have a family doctor. I've had a hell of time getting treated (in Quebec).

My blood pressure issues were handled immediately, but I need an ultrasound on my shoulder to see if it's tendonitis and that could take months. I'm about to start physio without knowing with certainty what the actual problem is.

Or I could drive to Ontario and get that handled tomorrow. We're miles behind them.

Private clinics are the best option if your work has good insurance. My wife used to work for PWC and they paid 90% of the costs.

 

[freakroor]

my health insurance only covers one doctor visit per year
oh wait i dont have health insurance
i havent seen a doctor in 15+ years
i suppose i will need one eventually though if i live long enough
or i can just suicide

 

[lifelessheap]

I've been working in the medical industry for some years now and I can already see a huge trend happening. Since covid a massive amount of doctors have retired and there isn't enough students working to become doctors to fill the gap. Most of the younger physicians are PA's or NP's not MD's. I mean why would you want to spend 10-12 years piling up massive debt to eventually become a doctor when you can start making youtube/tik tok videos at the age of 10 and by the time you're even out of high school you can have a successful career. Our society has successfully prevented an entire nation from wanting to start careers in jobs that we need due to student debt.

I predict within 20 years that you will no longer go to a doctor for yearly check ups and will only go in the most dire situation where you will need to pay out of pocket. Keeping the rich healthier while they continue to diminish the health of the average citizen. Murica tho right?

Artificial Intelligence is already replacing doctors. Regular doctors are essentially RX dispensing robots already.

 

[Scheme]

That quote is from the paper you provided that reviews 9 studies and is focused mostly on image recognition.

Since you can't seem to read or understand what you've posted, I'll do it for you:

Although the recently promising self-learning abilities of AI may lead to additional prospects [22], the viability of such diagnostic processes is inevitably determined by human experts through cumulative clinical experience [23,24]. In other words, clinical experts are the go-to persons informing AI of what the desired predictions are.
AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance. This signifies its artificial nature in a human-dominated medical environment.

No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced. AI will be a useful tool to help with diagnoses, data management etc. However, it would be extremely stupid to try and completely remove doctors from any part of the process, especially considering the utility of AI rests entirely on having good doctors.

Enjoy your "infinite" data sets. Lol.

Yes, that's how supervised AI's are trained. Experts are needed to determine whether an AI's output is 'good' or 'bad'. Once the AI is trained however, the AI does not require further training to perform it's tasks. And again, this is an older meta-analysis of even older studies of more primitive AIs. Recently, AI has exploded and both interest and investment has gone way up. Newer studies, like the 2023 one I posted (and many others that are available to you with a quick Google search) shows many cases of AIs that can outperform humans in diagnostics. I'm not sure why you are trying to deny both the current and future realities of our world. It's not like I am even suggesting something bad or crazy, with AI the future of basic healthcare can be cheaper, more accessible and faster. It's not a bad world to live in, especially given how limited certain areas are of doctors.

You took the phrase "infinitely more" to be literal? That's more a lack of understanding how the English language works on your end. Let me educate you:

infinitely

1. very or very much: 2. very or very much: 3. very much:

dictionary.cambridge.org

very or very much:
Travel is infinitely more comfortable now than it used to be.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Yes, that's how supervised AI's are trained. Experts are needed to determine whether an AI's output is 'good' or 'bad'. Once the AI is trained however, the AI does not require further training to perform it's tasks. And again, this is an older meta-analysis of even older studies of more primitive AIs. Recently, AI has exploded and both interest and investment has gone way up. Newer studies, like the 2023 one I posted (and many others that are available to you with a quick Google search) shows many cases of AIs that can outperform humans in diagnostics. I'm not sure why you are trying to deny both the current and future realities of our world. It's not like I am even suggesting something bad or crazy, with AI the future of basic healthcare can be cheaper, more accessible and faster. It's not a bad world to live in, especially given how limited certain areas are of doctors.

You took the phrase "infinitely more" to be literal? That's more a lack of understanding how the English language works on your end. Let me educate you:

infinitely

1. very or very much: 2. very or very much: 3. very much:

dictionary.cambridge.org

Machine learning algorithms, including supervised learning, aren't just set and forget about them for the rest of your life. Classifiers can change over time depending on many factors. Unsupervised and reinforcement learning are much harder to deal with.

However, the role of a doctor is much more than just an initial diagnosis based on some data. It's hilarious you actually think you can just use some training data, determine the classifier and then leave for the rest of your life to let AI produce a diagnosis, evaluate it, explain it to the patient, take into account all of the other variables including the patient's lives, history, context etc, recommend a path forward, and perform actual procedures. You're so clueless it's hilarious.

None of your studies actually claim anything remotely close to doctors being replaced. That's your fantasy world. This is what they say:

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

As for your use of infinity, let's just pray you actually know the difference. As of now, I have very little confidence in your abilities.

 

[Staph infection]

That’s been happening across the country for the past couple of years.
Private equity firms are running around buying up all the private practices, and creating monopolies in areas so they can jack up the price on healthcare.

This is happening down here in SWFL we have a few groups snatching up everything. Around this area we have LeeHealth and the Millennium group and they only care about the profits. There are only a handful of independent doctors left. I had to get an endoscopy last year and had to wait 9 weeks because my choices were a big box group and a single independent gastroenterologist whose reviews said he was very kind but should have retired 20 years ago.

 

[tastaylvr]

Why do people go to doctors so much to begin with?

What type of check do you need that you couldn't diagnose yourself? Most people know when something is wrong with them.

I would even go as far as to say that google is a better choice most of the time. You can put specific symptoms into chatgtp and it would come up with a better diagnoses. This is no hate against doctors since it's hard to diagnose every single issue when you see so many humans. The human body has too many issues and different doctors have different specialties. I had issues with psoriasis all my life and was told that it's impossible to cure. I ended up googling it a decade ago and fixed it with the help of other people who suffered through it as well. Most of the remedies were touted as having no data backing it up but it worked for me.

 

[Scheme]

That quote is from the paper you provided that reviews 9 studies and is focused mostly on image recognition.

Since you can't seem to read or understand what you've posted, I'll do it for you:

Although the recently promising self-learning abilities of AI may lead to additional prospects [22], the viability of such diagnostic processes is inevitably determined by human experts through cumulative clinical experience [23,24]. In other words, clinical experts are the go-to persons informing AI of what the desired predictions are.
AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance. This signifies its artificial nature in a human-dominated medical environment.

No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced. AI will be a useful tool to help with diagnoses, data management etc. However, it would be extremely stupid to try and completely remove doctors from any part of the process, especially considering the utility of AI rests entirely on having good doctors.

Enjoy your "infinite" data sets. Lol.

I didn't say they are currently replacing all doctors, I said they could replace a lot of doctors in the future. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to do any of those things in 10-20 years at the current rate of AI investment and technological progression. In the past few years we've had AI explode on the market and there's no reason to say why it would stop at this rate, especially given the plethora of studies showing the effectiveness of AI in various aspects of medical practice.

A lot of doctors' jobs is diagnostic in nature. Radiologists for example pretty much exclusively look at X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, PET scans, etc. and provide diagnoses of what they see on those. If AI can do it better, faster and cheaper (as AI has shown to do), why wouldn't society shift to using AI for those purposes? Especially if there is a shortage of radiologists?

And again, you are hung up on the English expression of 'infinitely more', as if you've never heard that said and the dictionary definition was somehow too confusing for you to handle. I'm sorry you lack both understanding and a strong enough point that you have to cling on to that so desperately.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I didn't say they are currently replacing all doctors, I said they could replace a lot of doctors in the future. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to do any of those things in 10-20 years at the current rate of AI investment and technological progression. In the past few years we've had AI explode on the market and there's no reason to say why it would stop at this rate.

A lot of doctors' jobs is diagnostic in nature. Radiologists for example pretty much exclusively look at X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, PET scans, etc. and provide diagnoses of what they see on those. If AI can do it better, faster and cheaper (as AI has shown to do), why wouldn't society shift to using AI for those purposes? Especially if there is a shortage of radiologists?

And again, you are hung up on the English expression of 'infinitely more', as if you've never heard that said and the dictionary definition was somehow too confusing for you to handle. I'm sorry you lack both understanding and a strong enough point that you have to hang on to that.

I never said that, lad. I said this:

"No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced."

Comprehension is very key for you. Again, this is from the study you posted and I'm going to keep posting it until you actually understand what you're reading:

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

As for the second study from 2023 that you posted? Well, let me educate you, this is what it concludes with:

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

Do you see anything that would suggest AI is going to replace doctors?



Oh and as for "infinite," I'm glad you use it the way a 12 year old girl would use it but this is what it actually means, son. Enjoy and consider yourself educated.

Definition of INFINITE

extending indefinitely : endless; immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible; subject to no limitation or external determination… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1. extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
infinite space
2. immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE
infinite patience
3. subject to no limitation or external determination
4.
a. extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large
infinite number of positive numbers
b. extending to infinity
infinite plane surface
c. characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms
an infinite set
an infinite series

 

[Scheme]

I never said that, lad. I said this:

"No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced."

Comprehension is very key for you. Again, this is from the study you posted and I'm going to keep posting it until you actually understand what you're reading:

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.
As for the second study from 2023 that you posted? Well, let me educate you, this is what it concludes with:

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

Do you see anything that would suggest AI is replacing doctors?



Oh and as for "infinite," I'm glad you use it the way a 12 year old girl would use it but this is what it actually means, son. Enjoy and consider yourself educated.

Definition of INFINITE

extending indefinitely : endless; immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible; subject to no limitation or external determination… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1
: extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
infinite space
2
: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE
infinite patience
3
: subject to no limitation or external determination
4
a
: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large
infinite number of positive numbers
b
: extending to infinity
infinite plane surface
c
: characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms
an infinite set
an infinite series

Why do you choose a small disclaimer of the studies and ignore the fact that they showed AI had diagnostic prowess better than humans? You are getting hung up on a disclaimer that AI can't yet fully replace humans and using that as proof that AI will never replace humans. I never claimed that AI can replace every part of the job that a human doctor does today. But to say that it couldn't replace it in the future, given the trajectory of AI and the current proof of it is Luddite in nature. Again, if an AI can diagnose better than a human, why wouldn't a job like radiology be replaced? Especially given the fact that for a job like radiology, accuracy and speed are critical to catching things before they progress.

Keep making personal insults and hanging onto semantics (which were incorrect on your part), since that's the only thing you seem to be capable of doing. If you had a better point you might realize you wouldn't have to do those things.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Why do you choose a small disclaimer of the studies and ignore the fact that they showed AI had diagnostic prowess better than humans? You are getting hung up on a disclaimer that AI can't yet fully replace humans and using that as proof that AI will never replace humans. I never claimed that AI can replace every part of the job that a human doctor does today. But to say that it couldn't replace it in the future, given the trajectory of AI and the current proof of it is Luddite in nature. Again, if an AI can diagnose better than a human, why wouldn't a job like radiology be replaced? Especially given the fact that for a job like radiology, accuracy and speed are critical to catching things before they progress.

Keep making personal insults and hanging onto semantics (which were incorrect on your part), since that's the only thing you seem to be capable of doing. If you had a better point you might realize you wouldn't have to do those things.

I'm glad you realize you made the mistake.

Oh and I had a good laugh at "disclaimers." The conclusion of a paper isn't a disclaimer. It's clear to anyone with a brain what the papers you posted actually say.

You're not weaseling your way out of understanding the papers you posted:

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

The papers show nice results in very specific instances for things like an initial diagnosis based on image recognition. However, even that needs to be overseen by a doctor. Again, nothing in these papers suggests doctors will be replaced. You can believe whatever you like but don't get upset when I point out that the papers you posted suggest you're ridiculous.

Oh and "insults" is hilarious. You posted some nonsensical definition of "infinite" and pretended like I'm the one who didn't understand. Your dumb ass deserves to be ridiculed for talking like a 12 year old. If you don't like it then that's your problem.

 

[N13]

I'm thinking that this is true, no doctors in the future but the reason is not what one would expect.

The profession of medical doctor is going to be obsolete.

There is new technology that will change everything. "Med Beds" as they call them.

Here are some search items I just found.

What is MedBed Technology?

Heard about Med-Beds? – Here’s everything you should know! Don’t you or your loved ones deserve a high level of comfort especially while returning from a painful hospital stay? Imagine a bed that offers natural and long-lasting health benefits through an extensive level of relaxation! That’s...

www.sentientlight.com

Why Med Bed Technology Is The Future Of Health

Why med bed technology Is the future of health: we combine technological advances with holistic principles, ensuring a thriving well-being experience for all

antiagingbed.com

I find this very interesting.

 

[Scheme]

I'm glad you realize you made the mistake.

Oh and I had a good laugh at "disclaimers." The conclusion of a paper isn't a disclaimer. It's clear to anyone with a brain what the papers you posted actually say.

You're not weaseling your way out of understanding the papers you posted:

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

The papers show nice results in very specific instances for things like an initial diagnosis based on image recognition. However, even that needs to be overseen by a doctor. Again, nothing in these papers suggests doctors will be replaced. You can believe whatever you like but don't get upset when I point out that the papers you posted suggest you're ridiculous.

Oh and "insults" is hilarious. You posted some nonsensical definition of "infinite" and pretended like I'm the one who didn't understand. Your dumb ass deserves to be ridiculed for talking like a 12 year old. If you don't like it then that's your problem.

There is no mistake, I've quoted from the paper itself showing the areas that AI is already performing better than humans. And again you ignore the fact that I never claimed doctors are being replaced by current AI. How about you obtain some of that 'reading comprehension' you consistently claim other's lack?

And there are plenty of other papers showing AI having better results than humans that again, you choose to remain ignorant on. For example:

Google AI has better bedside manner than human doctors — and makes better diagnoses

Researchers say their artificial-intelligence system could help to democratize medicine.

www.nature.com

A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Doctors for the Purpose of Triage and Diagnosis

AI virtual assistants have significant potential to alleviate the pressure on overly burdened healthcare systems by enabling patients to self-assess their symptoms and to seek further care when appropriate. For these systems to make a meaningful contribution to healthcare globally, they must be...

www.frontiersin.org

These are non-specific AIs that are showing these. I don't see why you can't imagine a medical-specific AI wouldn't perform even better than these which are already seeing results better than humans?

And no, the Cambridge dictionary is not some "nonsensical definition". Maybe you lack the knowledge that words have multiple meanings based on context? Feel free to look up other examples of the use of 'infinitely more'. Again, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend English. Perhaps it's why you are choosing the positions you are choosing.

 

[Sweater of AV]

There is no mistake, I've quoted from the paper itself showing the areas that AI is already performing better than humans. And again you ignore the fact that I never claimed doctors are being replaced by current AI. How about you obtain some of that 'reading comprehension' you consistently claim other's lack?

And there are plenty of other papers showing advances in AI that again, you choose to remain ignorant on. For example:

Google AI has better bedside manner than human doctors — and makes better diagnoses

Researchers say their artificial-intelligence system could help to democratize medicine.

www.nature.com

A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Doctors for the Purpose of Triage and Diagnosis

AI virtual assistants have significant potential to alleviate the pressure on overly burdened healthcare systems by enabling patients to self-assess their symptoms and to seek further care when appropriate. For these systems to make a meaningful contribution to healthcare globally, they must be...

www.frontiersin.org

And no, the Cambridge dictionary is not some "nonsensical definition". Feel free to look up other examples of the use of 'infinitely more'. Again, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend English. Perhaps it's why you are choosing the positions you are choosing.

Hey dumbass, for the second time, I never said you claimed they are currently being replaced. I said this:

"No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced."

At this point, I'm fairly certain you can barely read.

Oh and no shit, there are plenty of advancements in AI. That's not the point. The point is you're ridiculous and naive.

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

As for "infinite", your usage was nonsense but thankfully you now know what it actually means. You're welcome. Feel free to do more research on the concept of infinity.

Definition of INFINITE

extending indefinitely : endless; immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible; subject to no limitation or external determination… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1. extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
infinite space
2. immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE
infinite patience

 

[Scheme]

Hey dumbass, for the second time, I never said you claimed they are currently being replaced. I said this:

"No objective person could possibly read that paper and come to the conclusion that doctors are going to be replaced."

At this point, I'm fairly certain you can barely read.

Oh and no shit Sherlock, there are plenty of advancements in AI. That's not the point here. The point is you're ridiculous and naive.

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.
Your usage was nonsense but thankfully, you now know what "infinite" actually means. You're welcome. Feel free to do more research on the concept of infinity.

Definition of INFINITE

extending indefinitely : endless; immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible; subject to no limitation or external determination… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1. extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
infinite space
2. immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE
infinite patience

You hang onto a small disclaimer on an older study that I only posted as a quick reference, choosing to ignore the bulk of the study and the multitude of other studies showing AI already outperforming human doctors and are using that as evidence that AI will never replace any doctor, despite the fact that 20 years ago the technology wasn't anywhere even close to humans. In 20 years we've gone from AI not being able to compete to already being on par or superior in multiple diagnostic areas. And your claim is that this will for some reason stall here and never get any better? Despite the overall investment and progress that's been made in the past few years.

For some reason, you seem to think that the diagnostics that doctors perform are somehow uniquely impossible to reproduce with AI, even though AI has already been shown to outperform them in various areas. This is a claim you will need to provide evidence for. Please provide evidence showing that AI will never be able to replace a single doctor whose main job is diagnostic in nature. Without hard evidence for this claim then I will stop wasting my time replying to you.

My guess is you wont provide any evidence and just resort back to name-calling. Apologies if I am incorrect and you do respond in good faith, but don't waste your time replying otherwise as I wont read it in that case.

 

[Sweater of AV]

You hang onto a small disclaimer on an older study that I only posted as a quick reference, choosing to ignore the bulk of the study and the multitude of other studies showing AI already outperforming human doctors and are using that as evidence that AI will never replace any doctor, despite the fact that 20 years ago the technology wasn't anywhere even close to humans. In 20 years we've gone from AI not being able to compete to already being on par or superior in multiple diagnostic areas. And your claim is that this will for some reason stall here and never get any better? Despite the overall investment and progress that's been made in the past few years.

For some reason, you seem to think that the diagnostics that doctors perform are somehow uniquely impossible to reproduce with AI, even though AI has already been shown to outperform them in various areas. This is a claim you will need to provide evidence for. Please provide evidence showing that AI will never be able to replace a single doctor whose main job is diagnostic in nature. Without hard evidence for this claim then I will stop wasting my time replying to you.

My guess is you wont provide any evidence and just resort back to name-calling. Apologies if I am incorrect and you do respond in good faith, but don't waste your time replying otherwise as I wont read it in that case.

My guy, you can post as much nonsense as you want and claim I said things that I never did but you just look dumber and dumber. I explicitly said the advancements are impressive but they are extremely specific and completely incapable of replacing the broad spectrum of what doctors do.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the onus is on you to explain how AI is going to replace doctors. I provided a list of the things a doctor does and you gave zero explanation for how AI will do any of it, besides the specific diagnostics currently available. Who do you actually think is going to evaluate the efficacy and output of these diagnostics? A plumber?

No one agrees with you, even the papers you provided.



If you want to actually move this discussion further than you making up a bunch of lies then start explaining how these statements will no longer be true.

AI is still incapable of interpreting what it has obtained from data and of providing telling results. Therefore, the final success of AI is conditionally restricted by medical professionals who are the real evaluators of their diagnostic performance.

In other words, AI-based methods assist medical systems in diagnosing and predicting conditions by optimizing the use of different resources.

 

[Sweater of AV]

There is no mistake, I've quoted from the paper itself showing the areas that AI is already performing better than humans. And again you ignore the fact that I never claimed doctors are being replaced by current AI. How about you obtain some of that 'reading comprehension' you consistently claim other's lack?

And there are plenty of other papers showing AI having better results than humans that again, you choose to remain ignorant on. For example:

Google AI has better bedside manner than human doctors — and makes better diagnoses

Researchers say their artificial-intelligence system could help to democratize medicine.

www.nature.com

A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Doctors for the Purpose of Triage and Diagnosis

AI virtual assistants have significant potential to alleviate the pressure on overly burdened healthcare systems by enabling patients to self-assess their symptoms and to seek further care when appropriate. For these systems to make a meaningful contribution to healthcare globally, they must be...

www.frontiersin.org

These are non-specific AIs that are showing these. I don't see why you can't imagine a medical-specific AI wouldn't perform even better than these which are already seeing results better than humans?

And no, the Cambridge dictionary is not some "nonsensical definition". Maybe you lack the knowledge that words have multiple meanings based on context? Feel free to look up other examples of the use of 'infinitely more'. Again, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend English. Perhaps it's why you are choosing the positions you are choosing.

One more thing. I took a closer look at some of these papers. Since you added them, let me just have a little bit more fun at your expense. These are from the Nature paper you've provided:

The chatbot is still purely experimental. It hasn't been tested on people with real health problems -- only on actors trained to portray people with medical conditions. "We want the results to be interpreted with caution and humility," says Karthikesalingam.

Even though the chatbot is far from use in clinical care, the authors argue it could eventually play a part in democratizing helath care. The tool could be helpful, but it shouldn't replace interactions with physicians, says Adam Rodman, an internal medicine physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. "Medicine is just so much more than collecting information - it's all about human relationships," he says.

"This in no way means that a language model is better than doctors in taking clinical history," says Karthikesalingam.

Honest question, do you actually read anything that you post or do you just look at some titles and think "this sounds good?"



You're right, you shouldn't bother responding. Getting your ass handed to you repeatedly by using the things you post probably isn't too much fun. Lol.

 

[Samjj]

At least in my area 90% of health problems/concerns a NP and PA are not only more efficient but more personable as well.

Sister cut her hand 2 weeks ago. Went across the street to the PA and he stitched her up on the spot for 99 dollars cash. A MD ? Must be admitted to ER, must have nurse check you over, then they'll see you and do stitches (drawn out process where there sole goal is to bill the insurance for 3 different categories).

Have the Flu ? Go to that same PA for a small fee and he quickly runs the test and then immediately gives you tamiflu on the onsite dispenser. Doctor ? Hopefully there's a same day appointment assuming your already in network (if not it's 3 weeks minimum to see them) and then they turn a small visit into an hour ordeal with no prescriptions on site.

Cheaper isn't necessarily lower quality. My mom just retired doing ICU for over 40 years and loved the nighttime NP way more than any doctor she ever worked. Where way more personable, much more willing to help, and had a better grasp of the actual real day to day needs of the unit.

I think you're probably right for most healthy young people. The majority of referrals to primary care are 1) not terribly urgent and 2) can be solved by anyone with an ability to triage and give basic treatment.

When you're older and you have chronic illnesses with some comorbidity (the majority of the American population) you're better off having a Physician as a case manager.

I have no intention of insulting your mother, but NPs are not "running" the ICU service, although they may be well integrated and vital to the team.