|
Post by Dan Nguyen MS3 on Aug 26, 2016 10:41:51 GMT -4
It's an exciting and scary reality that technology is creeping into every crevice of our day to day lives, with smart houses and self driving cars. The field of medicine has always been a pioneering force for the development and advancement of technology. So it was only a matter of time before technology found a way to improve the field of psychiatric medicine. I would love to see more studies done to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the information provided by these analyzers. I think this is an exciting time to be a part of, but I think it is important to draw a line of balance between technology and human input. I say this because many of the decisions in medicine are made by evidence based research. Technically, since a majority of the mistakes made in this field are human error, a machine could run algorithms and would have better outcomes than decisions made by a human because all of its decision making would be based on evidence. However, I believe that the human element is very important in ones recovery as well, knowing someone is caring for you personally. It would be interesting to see a trial based on this.
|
|
|
Post by komolafe on Aug 26, 2016 19:30:39 GMT -4
First of all, I would like to say that there is nothing that can be created by man that is good enough to replace person to person interaction, especially in this context. Call it AI or any other form of sophisticated technology, it can’t be enough. With that said, I do think it can be quite an asset in addition to current clinical practices. The idea is appealing in light of its possible effect on productivity and improvement of the quality of health care. Thinking back to the days we didn’t have computers or the amazing technology of smart phones. I think its fair to say things got a bit easier. One can’t deny that products of technology advancement are essential. A lot are currently being used as diagnostic tools and as aid in surgical procedures. Like MRI or stent use in angioplasty; this could serve a similar purpose as long as it is utilized appropriately and in no way replaces the clinical judgments of a physician.
|
|
|
Post by Geoffrey MS3 on Aug 26, 2016 22:13:59 GMT -4
Treating patients and diagnosing diseases is a doctors job and incorporating technology and engineering sort of adds up like "attachments "to make the doctor more efficient. AI as a whole idea has brought a lot of more negative feedbacks than positive ones in other fields. But in psychiatric practice I think would be a wonderful fit in just diagnosing as AI is just so primitive that mistakes made can be rectified by physicians. As the article states it should be used by PCP's as patients visit them on a regular basis and they are the only branch in medicine to sort of take a step back and integrate all the bits and pieces left as a trail to come up with a referrals/diagnosis to specialists because the specialists only look for the matter in hand rather than the whole picture.PCP's can come up with a diagnosis quicker rather than later. Than being said in the future its better to be cautious than to hurry things up "qualitative rather than quantitative". With AI one of the main draw backs is that it has to form algorithms based on the cases that is being submitted to it, so it really comes down to collecting data from the entire world across all ethnic groups and age groups. But there can only be a considerate number of algorithms so just like the humans mastered the Rubik's cube I'm going to be optimistic and say that it shouldn't take that long. The article states that it uses speech to come up with diagnosis but i think, what would be more beneficial is brain waves and electrical impulses because that can eliminate patients who are muted or have other disabilities. We want AI to be able to diagnose a person with mental problems much earlier and I hope when it comes to treating them it should only be done by doctors who are HUMANS.
-GS MS3
|
|
|
Post by poojak on Aug 27, 2016 11:45:18 GMT -4
Psychiatry is a field entirely based on the clinical judgement to make the diagnosis. This can be a bit of a disadvantage because sometimes a person might look to be perfectly healthy however, they are not. This new model seems very good, because if they are modifying the model to predict the outcome before the person has a psychotic break it can get them the help that they need faster.This article is interesting and it would be interesting to see this model be put to test on real patients. Even though not everyone has the textbook symptoms of the disorders, when it will be applied on more and more people, the outcomes will be better. Also with the experimental model It can always be modified further and advance how psychiatry is practiced. I think this is a good step towards it is amazing that the product can even help monitor the progress of the patient.
|
|
|
Post by Bimel Thomas (MS3) on Aug 27, 2016 20:16:49 GMT -4
With all these new advances in technology, it’s only a matter of time before machines start becoming too smart for their own good and taking over the world a la Skynet in the “Terminator” series of movies. Anyway, this article actually contains some important, applicable ideas about technology in psychiatry. The fact that Schwoebel’s brother had to see 10 primary care doctors, change his meds multiple times, and experience 3 psychotic breaks before being accurately diagnosed and treated would be more than aggravating for any family member and reason enough to explore options to lessen that kind of mental and physical burden for patients in the future. The premise of this new breakthrough seems, at the least, promising.
But a machine that analyzes voice can’t really tell me if a patient has flat affect or if they’re groomed appropriately. It can’t be an empathic voice to comfort or show emotion. For this reason and others, I agree with the idea that modern technology will never create a replacement for human contact. And especially since errors in analysis from differences in speech and language based on demographics can be “catastrophic” according to the author, further research needs to be done to ensure no harm is done when attempting to assess via machine.
|
|
|
Post by Madhav Shyam MS3 on Aug 29, 2016 0:05:17 GMT -4
The A.I. technology described in the article is nothing too new, its been used earlier for different products such as search engines, guitar tuning, anything that's required repeated correction. It’s certainly an interesting piece of tech and its use can definitely bring forward advances in the field of Psychiatry. In my opinion this is not really going to catch on effectively, and im sure it will be put into a mobile app that will be discarded soon after release. What we should be doing is perfecting the best self-learning intelligence to ever exist: the human. We can easily train psychiatrists and doctors to flip through hours of videos of all these mental disorders symptoms ranging in severity from level 1-10. We need superstar experts to raise the bar of quick diagnoses, when we can train the best we can be the best. An example used in a book I read, was about a type of chicken sexers, people whose entire profession was dedicated to sorting recently hatched males from females by analyzing the shape of their backsides. It was said that these people had to spend ten years learning the differences from millions of examples, of backsides, before they were qualified to take control of a farm’s sorting. The risk was if a single male was found in a female batch it would result in incredible costs to these breeders operations. In a similar manner I think we can analyze peoples back...frontsides and produce some of the best future psychiatrists, by proposing more funding for psychiatry residencies and more new fellowships.
|
|
|
Post by Meika Shah on Aug 31, 2016 10:59:51 GMT -4
Artificial Intelligence is something that has always been of interest for medical companies, anything to help further back up a diagnose similar to new machines all hospitals should be equipped with. But with any machine, diagnosis is still based on what the physician says taking in consideration all results. Unfortunately, what a machine says as a possible diagnosis, is just that, a possibility. Ultimately, the physician's analysis of the patient is what the diagnosis is, but the AI program would definitely help support the diagnosis. There are many variations in conversation and speech, some that cannot be picked up by a computer program and simply picked up in conversation. The drawback is that an AI will never be as good as a Psychiatrist, or else why would they go through 4 years of medical school then residency? They have years of experience to pick up on clues of diagnosis, clues that an AI might not even pick up on.
|
|
|
Post by Neda Ebrahimi MS3 on Aug 31, 2016 22:02:48 GMT -4
Technology already plays an integral role in our lives, specially in medicine. Using artificial intelligence for detection of schizophrenia is a great tool for early diagnosis of the condition which will be very beneficial for the treatment of the patient. Unfortunately with every new technology there are many bugs to work out and modifications made before this new tool is found reliable enough to be used by healthcare providers. I hope the researchers at NeuroLex Diagnostics continue to improve this tool and we will soon see it as an standard fixture in all medical offices.
|
|
|
Post by I.E. MS3 on Aug 31, 2016 23:02:05 GMT -4
The problem with Psychiatry is that it treats symptoms, not causes. The hope represented by this article is that by catching symptoms earlier, or by better pinpointing linguistic markers, vulnerable patients can be treated earlier with more-appropriate medications.but I believe its kind of strange to defer to the judgment of a machine for a person's sanity, if there is proof that this method is more effective than current methods then I say go for it
|
|
|
Post by Asra Rab, MS4 on Sept 2, 2016 16:44:37 GMT -4
It’s always so interesting to see how advancements in technology lead to developments in the medical profession. This new invention could lead to earlier diagnoses and even allow people to seek medical help, if they have a suspicion about their symptoms. It could address the psychiatrist shortage in different regions, especially rural areas. Unfortunately, unless it somehow increases in accuracy and reliability, many physicians will be reluctant to endorse it, out of fear of missing diagnoses in some patients. I could see it being more useful for patients that are already diagnosed to monitor treatment efficacy.
|
|