4 karma · joined May 6, 2023
A medical paper isn't just a digestible blog post or conversational op-ed, it's full of technical jargon and statistics that even require expert readers to do some unpacking in order to evaluate how the presented findings fit into a larger picture. Indeed, it's a skill and often a form of art to be able to read and understand medical papers, even from within one's field of expertise. Aside from that, medical knowledge is never truly established, it is always in flux, both in respect to ongoing research and in the skill that derives from decade long practice of negotiating this with often more complex and nuanced real-world situations, i.e. with the patients that come through the doctor's office doors.
Doctors already face(d) the toll of diagnosis within a Google search's reach: misinformed, anxious and often outright overconfident patients often stand in their own way. That is not to say, that medical literacy and knowledge for the masses would be a detrimental thing, quite the contrary is true. However, with the high stakes faced in medicine, any misinformation, be it by Google or LLM can lead to grave harms.
All that being said, the authors purposefully sought to compare performance for a type of surgery that doesn't offer many obstacles for somebody new to the job. I guess it helps to identify tasks that highly-skilled MDs are freed up from doing when they are already scarce in a given location. But it's hardly an indicator that much what they do could be done by others, as some would probably like to believe.