Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I am sorry but I disagree. Even if you have the money to fully investigate every patient you may not be able to help them all. You can probably tell better who might have some chance and who is almost lost but aside from that, no sorry, not yet for quite some time. And also sorry, but survivors bias also sometimes makes us think that some kind of treatment worked, but it may also have been pure luck.

(Background: My colleque (MD PhD) who works in a precision oncology project from the bioinforatics side just lost a friend where he and other specialists where involved in the treatment. And that was not an exception. The search space of what might be the issue is just to big, the human population is to small to solve some genetic twirks (yet, hopefully).)

Edit: Sorry, overread your point about the not allowed treatment. You are right, the colleque above is able to predict better treatment in 65% of cases that gets applied only in 25% of patients (of total). Still, I would not go so far and say that those alternative treatments should also be applied right away because we would not know what would happen and while it may be good, side effects are a serious issue that cost lives, the hospital potentially millions (we are in europe, thank god) and are of limited scientific value. Studies will be done in to these treatments at a point in the near future but that may not help the current patients. This might sound cruel to you but it is probably the best we can do. Untested treatments are a serious problem, no good doctor would want to have anything to do with that, sorry.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: