Agreed. Not a radiologist, but I do a fair bit of MRI research. Experts vs lay people probably have different success with getting the right diangosis out of a frontier model. Subtle changes in prompts can cause different diagnosis[1]
I mean, probably not. No expert, but everytime I go to an immunology meeting (I'm a paediatrician) they've got a whole stack of new diseases. The field is moving fast, and there has to be a careful amount of shared decision making about when to test, what a positive test means and so on. I reckon they're as safe as any of us.
I'm interested to know about the approaches that you tried with the ML, and then decided to not use. In practice, the options are so many. How did you come up with the final approach - and was there a systematic way to decide which options to go for?
But for kids over 8, a nice long form video works well. That, and having enough time so that they don't feel like we're in a rush, but also not taking to long to load them onto the scanner...
For the younger ones, it's very much dependent on the child. So we take a bit of time to get to know them before we get them to attend. We have videos to prep them, and can follow a script when loading them (e.g. becoming an astronaut and blasting off into space...).
Part of my job, is that I design protocols to help young children lie in MRI scanners for a living. We have all sorts of techniques to help with this.
However, for each new scanning protocol, I like to have had it myself - so I know what the children go through. And, at times lying inside a MRI scanner, detached from the world, with only the noise of the scanner (very reduced with our new noise cancelling headphones), is almost meditative, and a welcome escape from the constant connection and pressures of being immediately available at work. Sounds like the writer achieves something similar in the coffee shop.
A systematic review like this can be helpful, in that it identifies where there are gaps in the literature, and prevents hype - if some studies show evidence of effect, and others do not, even if there are only a few published studies then we know somthing new about the totality of the literature on the subject.
That said, this particular systematic review has a couple of issues (e.g. I can't find the precise inclusion / exclusion criteria, nor can I find that it has been pre-registered on Prospero or another database).
I have written a few systematic reviews where there is very little data already availabe, and we use them to explain to funders why we need to do further research on a given topic.
'This is possible because the man is the candidate's father. When he says "he's my son," he's simply stating their family relationship.
The scenario doesn't present any logical contradiction - a father could very well be in a position where he's supposed to interview his own son for a job. This would create a conflict of interest, which is why he's saying he can't conduct the interview. It would be inappropriate and unfair for a parent to interview their own child for a position, so he would need to recuse himself and have someone else handle the interview.
The phrasing might initially seem like it's setting up a riddle, but it's actually a straightforward situation about professional ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest in hiring.'
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04501-8