Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Actuarial Jobs by State

New York  New Jersey  Connecticut  Massachusetts 
California  Florida  Texas  Illinois  Colorado


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2018, 09:38 PM
2pac Shakur 2pac Shakur is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: short
Posts: 93,455
Default Google's Artificial Intelligence Can Predict Your Death With 95% Accuracy

Quote:
The AI is 95% accurate which is much more accurate than the current early warning score system used in hospitals now.


Overall, the study found that the AI was able to predict mortality 24 hours after admission with 95 percent accuracy at one of the hospitals trialed, and 93 percent at the other. This was significantly better than the hospital’s traditional predictive model (the augmented Early Warning Score), which predicted mortality with 85 and 86 percent accuracy respectively. –IFL Science
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...th-95-accuracy

Actuaries are the new cab drivers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2018, 09:59 PM
DoctorNo's Avatar
DoctorNo DoctorNo is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
College: Western Washington, Colorado-Boulder
Posts: 12,924
Default

I predict that everyone reading this thread will die.

With 95% accuracy.

Anyhow, your headline is misleading.
__________________
The opinions of Doctor No do not necessarily represent the opinions of mathematicians or consulting actuaries. Facts cited by Doctor No are not necessarily facts. Find me on Twitter: @NorrisDoug. If you send me a LinkedIn invitation, please let me know who you are (unless it's obvious how I know you).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:27 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur View Post
Actuaries Underwriters are the new cab drivers.
IFYQ

Although even that isn't right. It's actually closer to having a doctor certify someone has less than 6 months to live so the insured can collect an accelerate death benefit..

And I also agree with Dr. No.
q(omega) = 1

by definition.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:21 AM
JohnLocke's Avatar
JohnLocke JohnLocke is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,179
Default

I would bet my left foot that most of the predictive lift is the new data the model is accessing and nothing to do with AI.

All aboard the hype train.
__________________
i always post when i'm in a shitty mood. if i didn't do that, i'd so rarely post. --AO Fan

Lucky for you I was raised by people with a good moral center because if that were not the case, you guys would be in a lot of trouble.
So be very, very glad people like me exist. Your future basically depends on it. --jas66kent

The stock market is going to go up significantly due to Trump Economics --jas66kent
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:48 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 83,292
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
I predict that everyone reading this thread will die.

With 95% accuracy.

Anyhow, your headline is misleading.
It's not really his headline. Nor Zero Hedge's.

It was on the original piece from IFL Science:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...cent-accuracy/



Let me excerpt from the IFLS piece:
Quote:
In one instance reported in the study, a patient with late-stage breast cancer was admitted to hospital. Her lungs filled with fluid, she was seen by several doctors and underwent a scan. According to the hospital's assessment, she had a 9.3 percent chance of dying during her stay, based on her vital signs such as respiratory rate, blood pressure, and pulse.

Google's AI ran its own assessment on the same patient, assessing 175,639 data points on her record, the researchers wrote in their study. These included data points that aren't normally considered during patient evaluations. The AI was able to access previously out of reach data, such as PDFs of notes made by doctors and nurses that indicated evidence of malignant pleural effusions (fluid build-up around the lungs) and potential risk of pressure ulcers.

Looking at this data, the AI put the patient's risk of death during her stay at 19.9 percent. She died 10 days after admission.
One, that 175,639 datoid is just bullshit for the sake of impressing.

Okay, I'm just disgusted with that example, too. It is a small data point. The AI could be just fine and have predicted a lower probability... maybe there was nothing wrong with the initial estimate.

Here is the real info:
Quote:
Overall, the study found that the AI was able to predict mortality 24 hours after admission with 95 percent accuracy at one of the hospitals trialed, and 93 percent at the other. This was significantly better than the hospital's traditional predictive model (the augmented Early Warning Score), which predicted mortality with 85 and 86 percent accuracy respectively.
So it's an improvement in accuracy. Not bad, but the prior approach wasn't that awful, either.

Not sure what this info is supposed to be used for, though
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.29023 seconds with 11 queries