IBM's Supercomputer Watson beat us in Jeopardy. Is taking over pastry making. And will be lending a helping hand in the health care industry. A writer from Forbes details an oncologist's take on Watson.
Dr Jack West, is not impressed.
In the end, however, the key question needs to be whether adoption of Watson will lead to better outcomes. My skepticism is no more valid than the wide-eyed optimism about what the next technical advance will bring, but we don’t need to rely on either of these positions. In clinical medicine, a new procedure or medication is tested and compared to current practice in a proper clinical trial. Considering that Watson will be a costly new intervention to implement, it is appropriate to seek actual evidence that patients do better, that patients and/or physicians are more satisfied, and that costs are either lower or are justifiably increased in combination with other results. I don’t think Watson should be widely implemented without broad testing and proof of benefit any more than we should administer a new unproven expensive medication to cancer patients just because its manufacturer conjectures that it will be a breakthrough.
Obviously, there's a long way more to go for robo-docs to be around with real doctors for diagnosing and prognosis matters. Read the whole article over at Forbes in the link below: