> This implies that there were a couple of AI systems that actually beat a radiologist,
Without any more details about the error rates, we can't be sure how likely this is due to chance. I would caution making any conclusion about AIs without better understanding the underlying statistics.
FTA:
> Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists.
So yeah, no AI system beat consensus of two radiologists. That's pretty damning.
Without any more details about the error rates, we can't be sure how likely this is due to chance. I would caution making any conclusion about AIs without better understanding the underlying statistics.
FTA:
> Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists.
So yeah, no AI system beat consensus of two radiologists. That's pretty damning.