AI cuts cardiac false positives
16h
A study in NEJM AI found an AI that combined ECGs with patient clinical history substantially reduced false positives in cardiac screening, potentially enabling precision prevention and earlier intervention.
Write your reply
this article is fascinating but I also had to close two AI "how can I help you" pop ups while reading it
"Two-thirds of physicians say they use AI to some degree... Some have found it invaluable in providing care and reducing burnout. But other healthcare workers say that it is being rolled out too fast and makes too many errors for such a high-stakes field." time.com/7378075/the-... #histmed
How The Pitt's AI Drama is Playing Out in Real Hospitals
AI is a central tension on 'The Pitt.' It is being used—and hotly debated—in hospitals across America.
time.com
February 16, 2026 at 3:54 PM
this article is fascinating but I also had to close two AI "how can I help you" pop ups while reading it
Reposted by Andrew Jacobs
"Two-thirds of physicians say they use AI to some degree... Some have found it invaluable in providing care and reducing burnout. But other healthcare workers say that it is being rolled out too fast and makes too many errors for such a high-stakes field." time.com/7378075/the-... #histmed
How The Pitt's AI Drama is Playing Out in Real Hospitals
AI is a central tension on 'The Pitt.' It is being used—and hotly debated—in hospitals across America.
time.com
February 16, 2026 at 3:51 PM
"Two-thirds of physicians say they use AI to some degree... Some have found it invaluable in providing care and reducing burnout. But other healthcare workers say that it is being rolled out too fast and makes too many errors for such a high-stakes field." time.com/7378075/the-... #histmed
Was this a course on how to use AI or how not to use AI?
February 16, 2026 at 1:09 PM
Was this a course on how to use AI or how not to use AI?
"AI detectors" are themselves AI, and yet are endlessly trusted by people on here if they say that a newspaper article is AI.
AI detectors are snake oil. None of them reliably works. And UK broadsheet are not yet using AI to write articles. No, that link to the deal you found doesn't prove it.
AI detectors are snake oil. None of them reliably works. And UK broadsheet are not yet using AI to write articles. No, that link to the deal you found doesn't prove it.
Just because I keep seeing those "I checked this piece and it's written by AI" - this is an old article of mine, before AI was available. So could we not?
February 16, 2026 at 10:44 AM
"AI detectors" are themselves AI, and yet are endlessly trusted by people on here if they say that a newspaper article is AI.
AI detectors are snake oil. None of them reliably works. And UK broadsheet are not yet using AI to write articles. No, that link to the deal you found doesn't prove it.
AI detectors are snake oil. None of them reliably works. And UK broadsheet are not yet using AI to write articles. No, that link to the deal you found doesn't prove it.
Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing
The volume of AI-enabled decent scientific work will overwhelm scientific journals and reviewers. Good post about this except it ends on a strange note, that Wiley and Elsevier AI tools might save us, which is both unlikely and would give even more power to them.
open.substack.com/pub/thebsdet...
open.substack.com/pub/thebsdet...
The Coming Apocalypse for Scientific Publishing
Price was right
open.substack.com
February 15, 2026 at 7:17 PM
The volume of AI-enabled decent scientific work will overwhelm scientific journals and reviewers. Good post about this except it ends on a strange note, that Wiley and Elsevier AI tools might save us, which is both unlikely and would give even more power to them.
open.substack.com/pub/thebsdet...
open.substack.com/pub/thebsdet...