IBM Drops $1 Billion On Medical Images For Watson 53
An anonymous reader writes: IBM is purchasing a company called Merge Healthcare for $1 billion. The company specializes in medical imaging software, and it will be a key new resource for IBM's Watson AI. Big blue's researchers estimate that 90% of all medical data is contained within images. Having a trove of them and the software to mine that data should help Watson learn how to make more accurate diagnoses. IBM thinks it'll also provide better context for run-of-the-mill medical imaging. "[A] radiologist might examine thousands of patient images a day, but only looking for abnormalities on the images themselves rather than also taking into account a person's medical history, treatments and drug regimens." They can program Watson to do both. The AI is already landing contracts to assist with medical issues: "Last week, IBM announced a partnership with CVS Health, the large pharmacy chain, to develop data-driven services to help people with chronic ailments like diabetes and heart disease better manage their health."
MOO (Score:1)
Robots are saving lives all the time. They always show up to work sober and on time. Look how safe it is to fly now.
Re: (Score:2)
Said the radiologist union.
What's the technology stack here? (Score:1)
What's the technology stack being used for Watson? Is it DB2? Is it Informix? Is it Java? Is it WebSphere? Is it AIX? Is it Tivoli?
Can anyone who has worked with DB2 tell me what it's like?
Can anyone who has worked with AIX tell me what it's like?
Can anyone who has worked with Informix tell me what it's like?
Re:What's the technology stack here? (Score:5, Informative)
What's the technology stack being used for Watson?
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Software: Watson uses IBM's DeepQA software and the Apache UIMA (Unstructured Information Management Architecture) framework. The system was written in various languages, including Java, C++, and Prolog, and runs on the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 operating system using Apache Hadoop framework to provide distributed computing.
Hardware: The system is workload optimized, integrating massively parallel POWER7 processors and being built on IBM's DeepQA technology, which it uses to generate hypotheses, gather massive evidence, and analyze data. Watson is composed of a cluster of ninety IBM Power 750 servers, each of which uses a 3.5 GHz POWER7 eight core processor, with four threads per core. In total, the system has 2,880 POWER7 processor threads and has 16 terabytes of RAM.
So....time for your examination.. (Score:2)
This probe goes in your mouth, and this one goes in your butt...
No, wait, it's the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for a start look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Software
Watson uses IBM's DeepQA software and the Apache UIMA (Unstructured Information Management Architecture) framework. The system was written in various languages, including Java, C++, and Prolog, and runs on the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 operating system using Apache Hadoop framework to provide distributed computing.
Hardware
The system is workload optimized, integrating massively parallel POWER7 processors and being built on IBM's
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:May be the only way to bring down healthcare co (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny part about this and the collaboration with CVS is that they just took a bunch of best of breed drugs off of their list of covered medications. These are drugs for the management of serious conditions like diabetes, MS, and transplants.
If this, or any tech, is being used by an insurance company then it's likely purpose is to stiff policy holders.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, treatment will still cost more than ever due to lawsuits and drug costs.
Lawsuits are often caused by human error: sleep deprived doctors, or overconfident doctors making bad diagnoses on insufficient information. A nurse with a printed flowchart will usually give a better diagnosis than a doctor. So replacing (or supplementing) doctors with AI should reduce lawsuits, and improve care.
Re:May be the only way to bring down healthcare co (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, treatment will still cost more than ever due to lawsuits and drug costs.
Lawsuits are often caused by human error: sleep deprived doctors, or overconfident doctors making bad diagnoses on insufficient information.
No, actually they are not. The leading cause of lawsuits is poor communication [nih.gov]. And if you want to believe a lawyer the top two leading causes are surgical misadventures and issues with child birth [ohiotiger.com]. Missed diagnosed probably comes in third.
I actually predict Watson as potentially increasing medical costs. The issue? Something we call incidentalomas [wikipedia.org]. These are incidental findings that were not expected and rarely result in an identified problem. But we spend a ton of time, money, and effort tracking these down [nytimes.com], and they rarely pan out [nih.gov].
A nurse with a printed flowchart will usually give a better diagnosis than a doctor. So replacing (or supplementing) doctors with AI should reduce lawsuits, and improve care.
If that is what you think, then go for it. If you believe that care from a lesser trained individual is better for you, then by all means have at it. I work with nurses, and physicians, and other "healthcare" extenders. Nurses are great a following a well ordered script. They can nail, say, 90-95% of the primary care medical problems out there (e.g. outpatient settings). The problem? If you are part of the 5-10%, they don't do so well [nih.gov] (and cost you more money in the process [acponline.org]). Most don't have the training or experience to "know what they don't know" or they are Unconsciously incompetent [wikipedia.org]. A good primary physician is at least "Consciously incompetent" to "Unconsciously competent" and can either treat you or refer you. Now I know some are going to tell me that their doctors "know nothing", but I'll bet they know more than most nurses (yes there are physicians who shouldn't be - that's another discussion for another day).
Re: (Score:1)
No, actually they are not. The leading cause of lawsuits is poor communication [nih.gov].
I work with nurses, and physicians, and other "healthcare" extenders. Nurses are great a following a well ordered script. They can nail, say, 90-95% of the primary care medical problems out there (e.g. outpatient settings). The problem? If you are part of the 5-10%, they don't do so well [nih.gov] (and cost you more money in the process [acponline.org]). Most don't have the training or experience to "know what they don't know" or they are Unconsciously incompetent [wikipedia.org].
I'll just point out that the research article you cite for the leading cause lawsuits is written by nurses, who you go on to point out are only good at following scripts and are unconsciously incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, treatment will still cost more than ever due to lawsuits and drug costs. The answer? Don't be sick."
No, the answer is to run your AI in a place not subject to those demented US laws on lawsuits and drug costs. Medical tourism, already a significant factor in some countries, will go into overdrive.
Re: (Score:1)
the problem is how exact and accurate the process is
I could see an AI doing a scan and popping "red flags" so that even an intern won't miss needed info
besides even if you are "Gregory House" level what if this one is your 25th of the day (and you ran out of Vicodin an hour ago)
Re: (Score:2)
besides even if you are "Gregory House" level what if this one is your 25th of the day (and you ran out of Vicodin an hour ago)
You're really not supposed to be using Vicodin on the job. Patients get jealous.
Re: (Score:2)
On a thousand images in a day?
No, they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
They definitely will take into account the information that they are given by the referring physician but often they don't have the whole patient's file there. Many places now just have technicians take the images and they are sent to the radiologist off site who does the diagnosis. And it's not a one-to-one ratio. There's not some radiologist sitting around in the lab waiting around for your x-ray to be taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a little pessimistic. Will it get rid of doctors? Probably not immediately. But the degree to which so much is automated today is increasing.
Small example. I take thyroid medication. This is what happens today.
1. I take a blood test
2. Blood test results are electronically sent to my doctor
3. The results come back with the calculation already there showing the recommended dose and the ministry guidelines...
My doctor at this point is really just acting as a middle woman. A nurse, pharmacist or other he
Re: (Score:2)
In this case your doctor is just acting as a middleman and your pharmacist or a nurse practitioner could probably issue the prescription. Or maybe just have your doctor give you the prescription without a visit. But then do you really want to use up their time on such a task when they could be using their skills on something else? I think anything that helps doctors do what they are supposed to do is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
no with this they can bill $500 for a 10 min visit.
Re: (Score:3)
First link after googling 'watson medical detection':
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... [wired.co.uk]
"Wellpoint's Samuel Nessbaum has claimed that, in tests, Watson's successful diagnosis rate for lung cancer is 90 percent, compared to 50 percent for human doctors."
Second link, where it works every day:
https://www.mskcc.org/about/in... [mskcc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you wouldn't know with a radiologist anyways since you never see them. You only ever deal with the technologist to get the images done.
IBM drops $1 billion (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the CEO drops one billion, and then you ask the CEO to stoop down and pick it up? The CEO will just fire 100,000 employees instead.
Good (Score:3)
In 10 or 20 years no respectable doctor will make a diagnosis in any non-trivial medical scenario without using an expert medical-AI system to help sift through all the possibilities. Computers could be so much better at weighing all the factors in a complex diagnosis that it's kind of appalling that it's taken this long to get systems like this going.
The need for the human element will always be there (IMHO) but medicine has become too complex for a single, trained human to manage all the possible factors efficiently or capably. We're not there yet, but we will be soon.
Combine the advanced medical sensing capabilities we have with the power of an expert medical system, and the art of medicine will take a HUGE leap forward.
Re: (Score:3)
I'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In twenty years health care will consist of expert systems, nurses, and surgeons. Twenty years after that, the surgeons will be gone too. The breakthrough will probably occur when an HMO somewhere in the US realizes that it can cut costs by eliminating highly paid MDs. Then the stats will show that those patients are actually getting better care, and the rest of the world will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a race between computers and mechanical turk. Something along the lines of a 'chicken sexer' [businessinsider.com] looking at X-rays on their phone. Swipe left for broken, swipe right for not broken.
Give the user feedback and promote the best ones to the next level. Even if you paid 1000 $.10 to review an X-ray you'd still come out cheaper than a radiologist. You could have tens of thousands of people reviewing
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually you wouldn't. Medicare pays radiologists $6 to read a single view chest x-ray (if there is also a lateral view I think it's $8). That's before billing costs. So the radiologist ends up with about $5. So you could have 50 random people give their opinion for 10 cents each for what a radiologist gets. Would they have to have malpractice insurance? If a radiologist misses a subtle abnormality they can be (and sometimes are) sued for millions of dollars.
This isn't internet misinformation-- you ca
How is this even allowed? (Score:3)
You think this is smart? (Score:2)
Radiologist's perspective (Score:1)
Hi, practicing radiologist here (with an undergrad degree in comp sci).
First off, imaging has essentially replaced the physical exam as a front line tool for figuring out what is wrong with someone. I can't blame the ordering providers too much for this, because even a master of physical diagnosis will get nowhere near the sensitivity and specificity of medical imaging for diagnosis. Still, it would be nice to occasionally read a CT for which the ordering doc has an idea what is going on, rather than the ty