Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA
From: FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: computer ECG, FDA testing of AI programs
Message-ID: <17229@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 20:54:42 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.17229
Posted: Fri Mar  2 20:54:42 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Mar-84 01:23:15 EST
Lines: 34

From:  Ron 

    Apparently because of fierce competition, much current information,
    particularly with regard to algorithms, is proprietary.  Worst in this
    regard (a purely personal opinion) is HP who seems to think nobody but
    HP needs to know how they do things and physicians are too dumb to
    understand anyway.
    ...
    They offer an advantage to small hospitals by offering verification of
    the analysis by a Cardiologist (for an extra fee).

What the latter seems to say is that the responsibility for accepting
the diagnosis is that of the local cardiologist.  I cannot see a
responsable doctor examining a few runs of a program's output and
proclaiming it "correct."

A hedge against complaints of computers taking over decision making
processes from human has been that we can look at the algorithms
ourselves or examine the reasons that a system concluded something.

If this information becomes proprietary the government will probably
license software for medical purposes the way the FDA does for new
drugs.

Imagine a testing procedure for medical diagnostic AI programs that is
as expensive and complicated as that for testing new drugs.

(ron)

[Ron makes a good point.  As a side issue, though, I would like
to mention that H-P has not been entirely secretive about its
techniques.  On March 8, Jim Lindauer of H-P will present a seminar
at Stanford (MJH 352, 2:45PM) on "Uses of Decision Trees in ECG
Analysis".  -- KIL]