After reading the actual published science paper referenced in the article, I would downvote the article because the title is clickbaity and does not reflect the conclusions of the paper. The title suggests that AI could replace pathologists, or that pathologists are inept. This is not the case. Better title would be “Pathologists use AI to determine if biopsied tissue samples contain markers for cancerous tissue that is outside the biopsied region.”
I just posted a plaque imaging study using AI analysis showing people eating the carnivore diet reversing plaque buildup by doing over a year of a strict ketogenic diet.
People I could have offended
AI
diet zealots
anti-keto reactionaries
CICO advocates
But instead I used a name without any of the trigger words and they missed it
We could rewrite this headline as:
Advanced identification techniques let doctors diagnose cancer earlier saving lives!
where is this study? i did a brief look through your post history but you post so much keto/carnivore stuff it’s hard to spot. it’s easy to jump on the downvote persecution bandwagon without linking to it.
These didn’t really get downvoted because the trigger words were avoided, and the communities are actively pruned of disinterested people, if you are looking for downvote brigading I could dig up examples for you
I just posted a plaque imaging study using AI analysis showing people eating the carnivore diet reversing plaque buildup by doing over a year of a strict ketogenic diet.
where does it say that in the study you linked?
as far as i can tell it says Plaque progression occurred, just wasn’t linked to ApoB or LDL-C levels.
Right, so the paper using the cleerly model only showed one person reversing plaque, but the two new ai models which don’t have a artificial floor, do show 30% plaque reversal. That’s the second reference to the YouTube talk.
The interesting thing here, is this group of 100 people following a strict ketogenic diet, mostly carnivore, had imaging done at the beginning and the end of a year. So we can apply any models to it that we like, it’s interesting that in 2/3 of the AI imaging models they show 30% of the people with plaque regression
The benefit of AI here is it makes it a quantitative analysis, assuming the AI model is stable. When we involve the humans to do scoring, there’s always a question about consistency, and bias in the outcomes.
As far as I’m aware plaque regression is basically unheard of at all in any literature outside of case studies
Thank you! Identifying sockpuppet accounts took some doing, but it has been really a fun adventure. Here is my moderation policy if you want the details https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
Thank you for your organic downvotes!
Actually its 30 sockpuppet identifications so far.
There was also a study going around claiming that llms caused cancer screenings by humans to decrease in accuracy. I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure the sample size was super small and localized in one hospital?
Anyway maybe they’re remembering that in addition to the automatic AI hating down votes.
Not that I’m a fan of AI being shoved everywhere but this isn’t that
Why would you use a large language model to examine a biopsy?
These should be specialized models trained off structured data sets, not the unbridled chaos of an LLM. They’re both called “AI”, but they’re wildly different technologies.
It’s like criticizing a doctor for relying on an air conditioner to keep samples cool when I fact they used a freezer, simply because the mechanism of refrigeration is similar.
Who is downvoting progress in Cancer identification?
After reading the actual published science paper referenced in the article, I would downvote the article because the title is clickbaity and does not reflect the conclusions of the paper. The title suggests that AI could replace pathologists, or that pathologists are inept. This is not the case. Better title would be “Pathologists use AI to determine if biopsied tissue samples contain markers for cancerous tissue that is outside the biopsied region.”
Lemmings with knee-jerk reactions to anything AI related
Ohhh, this 100%
I just posted a plaque imaging study using AI analysis showing people eating the carnivore diet reversing plaque buildup by doing over a year of a strict ketogenic diet.
People I could have offended
But instead I used a name without any of the trigger words and they missed it
We could rewrite this headline as:
Advanced identification techniques let doctors diagnose cancer earlier saving lives!
where is this study? i did a brief look through your post history but you post so much keto/carnivore stuff it’s hard to spot. it’s easy to jump on the downvote persecution bandwagon without linking to it.
The original study: [Paper] - Plaque Begets Plaque, ApoB Does Not: Longitudinal Data From the KETO-CTA Trial - 2025
The update with new AI imaging: New KETO-CTA Data - Clarification and Update on Cleerly
These didn’t really get downvoted because the trigger words were avoided, and the communities are actively pruned of disinterested people, if you are looking for downvote brigading I could dig up examples for you
where does it say that in the study you linked?
as far as i can tell it says Plaque progression occurred, just wasn’t linked to ApoB or LDL-C levels.
Right, so the paper using the cleerly model only showed one person reversing plaque, but the two new ai models which don’t have a artificial floor, do show 30% plaque reversal. That’s the second reference to the YouTube talk.
The interesting thing here, is this group of 100 people following a strict ketogenic diet, mostly carnivore, had imaging done at the beginning and the end of a year. So we can apply any models to it that we like, it’s interesting that in 2/3 of the AI imaging models they show 30% of the people with plaque regression
The benefit of AI here is it makes it a quantitative analysis, assuming the AI model is stable. When we involve the humans to do scoring, there’s always a question about consistency, and bias in the outcomes.
As far as I’m aware plaque regression is basically unheard of at all in any literature outside of case studies
are the ai models part of a peer reviewed update to the paper?
The paper hasn’t been updated, the cleerly AI is part of the original paper.
The updated model data is presented in a preliminary form in the lecture, papers still pending.
deleted
And someone immediately downvoted you
Yeah, lemmy can be very emotional!
Trying to keep a community on topic without that level of gut reaction is a sisyphean task https://discuss.online/modlog/696952?page=1&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity but i try anyway
13 of 20 bans for “Reason: Sockpuppet”. looks like some good modding you do over there.
Thank you! Identifying sockpuppet accounts took some doing, but it has been really a fun adventure. Here is my moderation policy if you want the details https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
Thank you for your organic downvotes!
Actually its 30 sockpuppet identifications so far.
Subscribed!
I was about to post a comment: Finally a use for AI that feels justified to spend energy on.
There was also a study going around claiming that llms caused cancer screenings by humans to decrease in accuracy. I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure the sample size was super small and localized in one hospital?
Anyway maybe they’re remembering that in addition to the automatic AI hating down votes.
Not that I’m a fan of AI being shoved everywhere but this isn’t that
Why would you use a large language model to examine a biopsy?
These should be specialized models trained off structured data sets, not the unbridled chaos of an LLM. They’re both called “AI”, but they’re wildly different technologies.
It’s like criticizing a doctor for relying on an air conditioner to keep samples cool when I fact they used a freezer, simply because the mechanism of refrigeration is similar.
But the title had “AI” in it.
Also to answer your question: https://lemvotes.org/post/programming.dev/post/36238264
A lot of people don’t realize that votes are public 🤓
Well, it would be logical to say that anonymity is a threat. Plus, it makes it easier to block thought-criminals if they become a threat… :3
What anonymity, don’t joke with me here.
RFK
Cancer causes autism