| ▲ | Aeolun 2 hours ago |
| I would not use Claude to get a second opinion on anything that’s an image. |
|
| ▲ | rmbyrro an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree with you for some kinds of images, but not all. LLMs are the best PDF-to-markdown converters, in my experience. I have a CLI that converts PDF to PNG, then run a background agent to "read" each PNG and write it down as markdown; it works flawlessly even for complex math formulas, it can "translate" complex charts, graphs, and tables into words. It's slow and arguably expensive compared to traditional OCR, but very effective and precise. |
|
| ▲ | maxall4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Especially an MRI which is a 3D medium —something current LLMs are very bad at. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > MRI which is a 3D medium The finer detail (which you may already know) is more complicated. MR does ‘2D’ scans which are a slice, then a gap of non-imaged tissue (typically 10% the slice thickness) then a slice. Each slice is an image with a number of pixels, say 320. Each pixel in the slice is small, eg 0.5mm but very thick due to the slice being thick, which is required for MRI signal. The pixels are 3mm in the shoulder scan done here. ‘3D’ scans don’t have a gap between slices, and are often isotopic, meaning the same resolution in all directions. The voxel (a pixel with depth) would be something like 1mm x 1mm x 1mm. 3D scans are slow, prone to movement artifact and never as pretty in plane as a good 2D. You can reformat them to look ok in any plane. | |
| ▲ | amluto 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I know little about radiology, but MRI is a 3D medium. I would not be at all surprised if one could slice an MRI the wrong way to produce a 2D image that fails to show a feature that exists in the source data. |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | yolo3000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I used it on an ankle fracture xray, it was quite useful to make sense of things. But not like a 2nd opinion. |
|
| ▲ | behnamoh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What's wrong with Claude? I've asked it to analyze images and even Opus 4 would perfect nail it. |
| |
| ▲ | nostrebored an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Claude is the worst FM at image understanding. Prior to gpt-5.4 the only usable models were Gemini and Qwen. | |
| ▲ | throwrioawfo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, it can see obvious stuff in images, but as far as I'm aware it is not designed for (or tested on) performing the kind microscopic analysis that radiology involves |
|
