George,
>A further paper was published in '82. This showed the computer as right
>in 91% cases whilst the registrar and houseman were 79% and 71%.
So why isn't it still in use?
>However the only computer specific part of this was the Bayes (b. 1793 -
>well before silicon computers) Theorem calculations (i.e 1 + 1 = 10 etc
>but very fast).
Agreed
>Otherwise it was a collection of human experience
>(data), human pecision in defining terms and human vision in getting it
>all together.
Minor disagreement here, probably over semantics. But according to de Domal
"Computer Aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain" Revue d'Epidemiologie et
de Sante Public, 32, 50-56
(Our studies have) "utilised not the "guesstimates" of "experts" but
observed findings in large scale prior studies."
> Basically it could all be duplicated by a human given pen,
>paper and enough time
> - the computer is just an electronic abacus and a
>reminder of the consistently specific statistical input that was
>designed by the human.
Agreed.
>Dombal himself said that the computer prediction should only be used as
>a 'special investigation' after a human diagnostic prediction.
Well he would, wouldn't he.
>The treatment decision bit didn't come into it.
Not at that time but a quarter of a century later it does - e.g. Prodigy
>I think in many cases the generic 'computer' is still a solution looking
>for a problem (not counting Quake 11 that is).
I'm non-violent and playing Starship Titanic. (I even had to upgradee as the
game wouldn't install on a Cyrix chip.
Regards
Jeff
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|