Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Businesses IBM Medicine

IBM Drops $1 Billion On Medical Images For Watson 53

Posted by Soulskill from the waiting-for-you-to-post-them-on-facebook-isn't-cutting-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Drops $1 Billion On Medical Images For Watson More

IBM Drops $1 Billion On Medical Images For Watson

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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]

    • 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.

  • If they dropped one billion dollars they should really pick it up.

  • Good (Score:3)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday August 08, 2015 @12:20PM (#50275509) Journal
    We're long overdue for utilizing the power of computers to make educated diagnosis of medical ailments.

    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.
    • Thing is, so much of medicine is not diagnostics. Oh, sure, most people think of the diagnostics, because that's most of what they think of "going to the doctor" is. In reality, most doctors do not do House-style diagnostics very often. We do therapeutic interventions. And for some conditions, computers are better than people (cf. Scamper_22's comment about hypothyroidism above). But when you need your appendix out, or a heart catheterization, or management of ongoing disease... the human factor is huge.

      I'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      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.

      • Within 40 years the singularity should hit. If humanity survives I really hope we'll have moved past the hassles of medical insurance.

  • I wonder how long (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday August 08, 2015 @12:21PM (#50275513)
    until computers replace $500k/yr radiologists. It's just Heuristics.

    • 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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

    by Stan92057 ( 737634 ) on Saturday August 08, 2015 @06:48PM (#50276965)
    How is this even allowed? This is patents data, what am i missing here? they bought a comany so now they think they can data mine as they please? Dont they need the patents permission?
  • Watson is now learning all about a human being's physical weak points and how they die.

  • Radiologist's perspective (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close