\n<\/p>\n
We have been alarmed at how the profit-driven US medical system has been eagerly embracing AI despite ample evidence of uneven performance, such as too-frequent, serious errors in what ought to be simple tasks like transcriptions of MD treatment notes. Two new Reuters investigations plus an article in Nature give further cause for pause. <\/p>\n
The most troubling one is the newer of the two new Reuters investigations, which includes examples of harm done by AI-enhanced surgical tools. Worse, it specifically finds that recent AI updates have increased the incidence of serious errors and resulting harm to patients. The article opens with a major AI backfire by Johnson & Johnson<\/a>:<\/p>\n In 2021, a unit of healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson announced \u201ca leap forward\u201d: It had added artificial intelligence to a medical device used\u2026..to assist ear, nose and throat specialists in surgeries.<\/p>\n The device had already been on the market for about three years. Until then, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had received unconfirmed reports of seven instances in which the device malfunctioned and another report of a patient injury. Since AI was added to the device, the FDA has received unconfirmed reports of at least 100 malfunctions and adverse events.<\/p>\n At least 10 people were injured between late 2021 and November 2025, according to the reports. Most allegedly involved errors in which the TruDi Navigation System misinformed surgeons about the location of their instruments while they were using them inside patients\u2019 heads during operations.<\/p>\n Cerebrospinal fluid reportedly leaked from one patient\u2019s nose. In another reported case, a surgeon mistakenly punctured the base of a patient\u2019s skull. In two other cases, patients each allegedly suffered strokes after a major artery was accidentally injured.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s stop here. First, some of these injuries were severe. Second, they call into question one of the premises of medicine practiced by AI, which is that it can do an adequate job of what in humans would be visualization and resulting decision-making. A comment on Twitter challenged this premise independent of these accounts, based on whether enough good training data could be obtained. <\/p>\n AI and robotics might be advancing at an amazing pace, but this is just BS, you still need a huge amount of training data to develop stand-alone surgical robots and this is not simply not available. Would be surprised if even 1% of surgeons is recording their procedures at the\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/3gC40zwGoE<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n