Post

In the context of so-called AI cancer screenings — yes, some stooges suggest apps as actual solutions — these and many other related findings, indicate that people singing the praises of such apps forgot basic stats: > the balance of benefits and harms including overdiagnosis should be reconsidered

doi.org92 Systematic review of overdiagnosis in cervical cancer screening: how should we define overdiagnosis in cervical cancer screening?Objectives Cervical cancer screening is a common strategy for cancer control worldwide. Although its real target is invasive cervical cancer, the incidence has not been high in developed countries, an...

Many who push AI solutionism here (and elsewhere) propose that cancer screenings using AI can be "fixed" by collecting more "diverse” (whatever that means) data. This implies datafication is good or even always good maybe and that these models are actually useful so long as we remove the racism...

The problem is not just that a model is racist it's also that there is no reason to assume that we should extract that data, from vulnerable groups, think of HeLa, Tuskegee, these things do not end well, from e.g. Black people (patients!) and put their data into what? An app owned by a company?

There is no reason to assume the model is actually as accurate as it seems for people whose data is included as this is just a snapshot in time of cancers — and importantly a snapshot during which there are still skilled technicians & doctors. If we deskill those professions such tech might fail!

3 reposts35 likes

When AI proponents who frame statistics in this solutionist way are using "cancer: we also must detect that it is a rhetorical sleight of hand to obscure that often seemingly technical apps are created NOT for medical altruistic reasons but FOR profit. (Also see blue box at the link.)

ainowinstitute.org3: Consulting the Record: AI Consistently Fails the Public - AI Now InstituteAmid the excitement over AI’s (speculative, hypothetical) potential, we have lost sight of the sobering reality of its present and recent past. AI is already intermediating critical social infrastruct...

Regarding cancer: See document 89471 from the 1st - 3rd July 1946 (!) stored in the US government printing office. There are low-tech approaches. Those approaches aren‘t the subject of serious research. As long as data is (willingly/institutionally) ignored, all is just spectacle for profit.

As you know, this is something the pharmaceutical industry is known to do and is worthy instead of extreme regulation (think of Theranos, Palantir, etc). So much so in fact that journals are unable, even though they claim they want to, keep their pages free from tobacco industry propaganda!

doi.orgTobacco funded research: how even journals with bans find it hard to stem the tide of publicationsTobacco companies are investing billions in pharmaceutical and medical products. These ties complicate the ongoing efforts of researchers, scientific organisations, and journals to distance themselves...