SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Artificial intelligence in healthcare is often a story of percentages. One 2017 study predicted AI could broadly improve patient outcomes [open, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7702] [DX] by 30 to 40 percent. Which makes a manifold improvement in results particularly noteworthy.
In this case, according to one Israeli machine learning startup, AI has the potential to boost the success rate of in vitro fertilization (IVF) by as much as 3x compared to traditional methods. In other words, at least according to these results, couples struggling to conceive that use the right AI system could be multiple times more likely to get pregnant.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines assisted reproductive technology (ART) as the process of removing eggs from a woman's ovaries, fertilizing it with sperm and then implanting it back in the body.
The overall success rate of traditional ART is less than 30%, according to a recent study [open, DOI: 10.5455/aim.2019.27.205-211] [DX] in the journal Acta Informatica Medica.
But, says Daniella Gilboa, CEO of Tel Aviv, Israel-based AiVF—which provides an automated framework for fertility and IVF treatment—help may be on the way. (However, she also cautions against simply multiplying 3x with the 30% traditional ART success rate quoted above. "Since pregnancy is very much dependent on age and other factors, simple multiplication is not the way to compare the two methods," Gilboa says.)
Journal Reference:
Abhimanyu S. Ahuja. The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician, PeerJ (DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7702)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @07:03PM (13 children)
This is not what the planet needs. I lack the will to even spell out why anymore.
khallow will probably be pleased, though.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 01 2021, @07:16PM (7 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @07:25PM (5 children)
Our species would almost certainly survive such an onslaught.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday January 01 2021, @08:26PM (4 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @08:47PM (3 children)
Let's demonstrate we can treat the current world population with some basic shred of dignity before we continue implementing strategies to grow it.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Saturday January 02 2021, @12:23AM (2 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:38PM (1 child)
Yeah I didn't mean we should stop trying to fight COVID and other diseases, though I can see how the post looked like that.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:41PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @07:53PM
You're thinking of the vaccine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @08:21PM (1 child)
"The planet" doesn't need anything from humans.
Maybe you meant *other people*, as in, *I* want what *I* want?
Or maybe you meant animals and plants? They don't really care because they are not aware. This would still be about what you want. So just come out and say it, *I* want less people to be born.
(Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @08:38PM
Some evidence for your claim would be good otherwise it's your word (and a whole lot of traditionalists) against mine and a whole lot of other people.
Evidence against your claim is that we are animals and we're self-aware. There are plenty of studies (the mirror test for example) that suggest self-awareness is present in other animals.
I'd also argue you can care on some level about your fate (Hungry--food now! That hurts--stop!) without having self-awareness in the sense of introspection or a mental model of yourself.
I want fewer people to be born.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @08:39PM
He would. Product of AIVF, our khallow is! In a lab.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:34AM
Given that IVF currently accounts for %0.4 of yearly births worldwide, I think I'll give more of my attention to the proven ways of reducing the birth rate, like: increasing the rate of education of women worldwide, raising standard of living above poverty, providing birth control and the sex education to use it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:14PM
The easiest way to bring world population down is to guarantee everybody enough food to survive, clothes on their back and a roof over their head. Most of the population growth is from areas where parents need children to provide for them in old age. It's not enough for them to have the 2 children average that would lead to a controlled decrease in population, they need to ensure that they've got at least one or two that survive to adulthood.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @07:51PM (2 children)
This study specifically excludes the most common method of implantation, and I believe counts the numbers wrong. They're looking at the success of an individual egg being implanted, and comparing it to pre-selecting a single egg well.
Now, I may be wrong, since not only does this study have gramaticall errors, it's not very coherently written. What I believe they're doing is this:
Multiple eggs are extracted and fertilized in a test tube. All those eggs (usually 3) are implanted, for chances of at least one taking - your body is going to select the best candidate, and very infrequently this ends up with twins. So usually, only one egg makes it into a fetus. Using the math in this study, this is a 66% failure rate. What this their method suggests is using AI to select the single egg with best chance of survival, and only implanting that egg, instead of letting the uterus make that choice.
Their method results in a higher success rate per egg. We don't give a shit about that - we care about the best success rate per procedure, and the current method of implanting multiple embryos gives a better result.
But hey, they got AI and a flowchart, and they use "predictive modeling."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:17PM (1 child)
We should care about the success on a per egg basis. Multiple eggs are used because if you use a number of eggs, you increase the likelihood of having one egg successfully implant. The result is that you have the occasional issues with IVF leading to multiple fetuses and ultimately babies. Having increased likelihood of an individual egg, would mean fewer eggs being tried, which would lead to increased likelihood of pregnancy and reduce the number of eggs used in the process. This would also lead to fewer eggs being used per round, so potentially more attempts for the eggs harvested.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:45PM
I did not disagree with what you said. What I said is that the math they're using to sell this to the public is bs. Which it is, since they are presenting this as chances of success for getting pregnant, which it is not. It is however, everything you mentioned, which is an improvement, but not nearly as important as their marketing claim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @08:25PM
This is a preventitive, admittedly, but doctors OUGHT to be the ones practicing it, and so should the media, since many stupid people outsource their thinking to the media.
Tell women that they need to get married in their early 20s and start trying to have children immediately afterward. You know that show "Sex and the City"? Do THE OPPOSITE of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @08:27PM (10 children)
Fucking before you are 40 can also help with fertilization.
Nothing worse than having your kid late in life, even with money you quickly realize fighting nature was a dumb ass mistake.
Anyway, let the liberals perish in their own freezers at the hands of their non-functional autistic offspring, while conservatives inherit the Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @08:42PM (3 children)
Clueless bullshit and completely wrong advice.
I had a son when I was 42 and VERY glad I waited until I had the resources and more importantly, the maturity and life skills to parent properly.
Also, I got to actually have a great life for a couple of decades where I could go anywhere and do anything I wanted whenever I felt like it, which is an opportunity that people who have kids early never get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:40AM (1 child)
In fairness, you don’t know if you would have enjoyed your life had you had a child earlier. You enjoyed how you did do it (congrats), but you don’t have experience of what it’s like to have a child as a younger person to have anything to say about it. The thing about having responsibility is that it forces you to rise to the occasion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:27AM
Destroy the nuclear family. Turn our K-12 daycare centers into boarding schools. That will solve this dilemma.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @06:46AM
I thought I was horribly slow, unable to get college done until age 25. Once that was done, I immediately made lots of kids. I had the maturity and life skills from age 14, but no resources until completing college.
You're supposed to have "the maturity and life skills to parent properly" by age 14. If you didn't, you might be one of those crazy leftist types (rioting, sleeping around, majoring in something dumb...) who really shouldn't have kids. Actual resources usually can't be had at age 14, but you took 3 times that amount of time. More reasonable ages: 18 for trades and military, 22 for engineering/software/economics/finance/actuary, 24 for lawyer or CPA, 36 for medical doctor. It doesn't take 24 years to get through college.
Assuming you started college at 18, which common but already a couple years later than the achievers, you took 28 years to get your shit sorted out.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @08:43PM (5 children)
Enjoy your war-torn, polluted, concrete shithole. Yours for just $9,999.99 a month. Pay nothing for 12 months. 99,999% APR variable.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday January 01 2021, @11:40PM
Forgive me replying to my own post, but the fortune says:
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @07:19AM (3 children)
Let's see how that looks:
"war-torn"
Obama fueled war all over the Middle East, particularly in Syria, and at one point was busy bombing 8 countries. Hillary was clearly itching to invade Syria. Trump didn't start any new wars, has been withdrawing troops over the objections of DC swamp warmongers, and negotiated 4 different peace treaties. Biden (or Harris) is going to ignite Syria again, probably invading it.
"polluted"
Option 1 is to pollute a modest amount in the USA. Option 2 is to pollute much worse but in China, connected to the USA by wind and ocean current, and then pollute even more with giant container ships burning bunker fuel. Trump picked option 1, so you don't like it? You want the jobs in China so that you can't see the factory smokestacks?
"concrete shithole"
That sounds like a city. Every concrete shithole votes left. Conservatives live in harmony with nature. My spacious suburban-like neighborhoods have featured peacocks, iguanas, opossums, tortoises, huge wading birds, muscovy ducks, and vultures.
"Yours for just $9,999.99 a month. Pay nothing for 12 months. 99,999% APR variable."
That also sounds like a city, with the irresponsible finances common to leftists. I paid off my place in a few years. It's 3500 square feet on a half acre. I should have gone bigger, since I now have 12 kids. It was only $310,000 despite being near the beach, since it isn't in a big city. If I were less well off, I could have gotten a 3-bedroom on a quarter acre for $50,000. Housing is fundamentally cheap in the USA unless you insist on living in a big city. Normal families can still live on a single income. You like the city because of the leftist toys and because it fits the DINK lifestyle, but you're in a bidding war with all the other irresponsible people. You're choosing, voluntarily, to live where most of your income is taken by landlords and taxes.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:02PM (2 children)
"war-torn"
Obama and Clinton are basically conservatives as far as I'm concerned. Find me some foreign policy discussions with Sanders or AOC and we'll talk.
"polluted"
I'd like Option 3. Reduced consumption. Proper Green New Deal. Rewilding. A sustainable economy with a UBI.
"concrete shithole"
Hahahahahahahahaha! Tell us another! You ever seen what they're like on a hunt? Any species that gets in the way of how they want to use the land ("managed" land is not wild and much of it is agricultural monoculture) is fair game for persecution and eradication. And they absolutely delight in doing so.
Yeah, "featured". That's just the toffs' toy animals to decorate their play space.
"Yours for just $9,999.99 a month. Pay nothing for 12 months. 99,999% APR variable."
Financial products developed and marketed to them by the right-wing corporatists, to exploit and plunder what little they can get.
I really dislike cities and prefer not to live there. I would've thought that would be obvious.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2021, @05:23AM (1 child)
These were running free, not pets: peacocks, iguanas, opossums, tortoises, huge wading birds, muscovy ducks, and vultures.
Those are creatures from at least 3 different continents, all thriving in suburbia. (am Florida Man) So far, I have only tasted one of those animals.
You don't get a sustainable economy with UBI and the Green New Deal. Other countries won't restrain themselves. Soon they produce all the goods, and the US has nothing to offer but unrenewable natural resources. The poor are kept appeased by bread and circuses, for a while, but the currency suffers. Shortages appear. Eventually the poor riot, and then they are shot to keep order. The rich get much richer because they are involved in the selling of unrenewable natural resources to foreign factories.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday January 03 2021, @07:02PM
That's why such a reinvention of the economy ideally needs to happen globally to work effectively. Of course it's extremely unlikely humans will manage to cooperate on that level and to the degree required, so we're probably doomed.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:38AM (1 child)
"Can AI Lead to Pregnancy?"
That sounds like the plot to any of several meh to bad scifi movies. Demon Seed, for example.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:12AM
Oh, I miss the bad movies friday night. Gone with the movie rental shops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0