Do you know that this is the same sensitivity of a real clinician. Read the 2019 article below which compared 1694 studies. I'm sharing their summary as well. We are in 2022 so you can imagine the improvements done in AI.
Results The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P < .001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P = .67). In comparison with dermatologists’ diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2736374
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- AHI
- AHI Nasdaq Delisting Party
AHI Nasdaq Delisting Party, page-29
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 104 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add AHI (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
9.2¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $22.73M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Featured News
AHI (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable