Yeah, those are part of the issue. For example on the webpage, there is no discussion about the false negative/positive rate of the system, and no comparison or link to an academic paper that compares the performance of the system to a trained breast radiologist.

Does a patient take a negative exam as "I'm good!" and forego actually seeing a doctor, or having the exam read by a radiologist?

A positive result is also a challenging situation. I've talked to patients before after diagnosing them, and as you could expect most people are shocked, scared or they want to know what they should do next.

In breast radiology specifically (at least in the US) there is a well defined reporting lexicon and classification system. From what I can tell, the system does not use the lexicon or BI-RADS classification. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/BI-RADS/BIRADS-Re...

Breast cancer can be very subtle, and can be hard to figure out, especially if a patient has had surgery or other benign abnormalities. https://radiopaedia.org/cases/development-of-dcis?case_id=de...

Diagnostic and screening images also undergo rigorous QA for the entire system. Does the model have some kind of QA built in?

There is a just a small disclaimer at the top that says "we will not store your data on the server. please do not worry about privacy issues". Not exactly a formal or legal binding agreement.

In fact, you can't even connect over https. http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/upload

These are just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. Like I said before, I do think that what coolwulf works on and is trying to do is good, and in the long run can help doctors better characterize findings and help patients. But like anything in health care, there are a lot of edge cases and side effects that you have to think about. The stakes are also very high.