Christian Bluethgen
@cxbln.bsky.social
Radiologist @ USZ Zurich | Med AI research @ Stanford AIMI | #RadSky #ChestRad 🫁🫀 🩻
With amazing colleagues: @stanfordmedicine.bsky.social @stanfordaimi.bsky.social @curtlanglotz.bsky.social @akshay-chaudhari.bsky.social; @krauthammerlab.bsky.social; @ethz.ch @michaelmoor.bsky.social; @rwth.bsky.social @danieltruhn.bsky.social; @tudresden.bsky.social @jnkt.bsky.social & HOPPR
October 30, 2025 at 8:34 AM
how’d you guess?
January 19, 2025 at 8:11 PM
how’d you guess?
my wl:
- fewer low-hanging proof-of-concept studies (yes, it works for your specialty/organ/classification, too)
- fewer head-to-head model comparisons (yes, llama 3.1 was better than llama 2 for your case, but peer review took 8 months, now there’s llama 4)
- instead: RCTs, relevant outcomes
- fewer low-hanging proof-of-concept studies (yes, it works for your specialty/organ/classification, too)
- fewer head-to-head model comparisons (yes, llama 3.1 was better than llama 2 for your case, but peer review took 8 months, now there’s llama 4)
- instead: RCTs, relevant outcomes
December 26, 2024 at 10:42 PM
my wl:
- fewer low-hanging proof-of-concept studies (yes, it works for your specialty/organ/classification, too)
- fewer head-to-head model comparisons (yes, llama 3.1 was better than llama 2 for your case, but peer review took 8 months, now there’s llama 4)
- instead: RCTs, relevant outcomes
- fewer low-hanging proof-of-concept studies (yes, it works for your specialty/organ/classification, too)
- fewer head-to-head model comparisons (yes, llama 3.1 was better than llama 2 for your case, but peer review took 8 months, now there’s llama 4)
- instead: RCTs, relevant outcomes
thanks for sharing
December 22, 2024 at 6:42 PM
thanks for sharing