Breast MRI in cancer survivors results in more unneeded biopsies
I strongly believe that more data is always better. (But more testing is not always better if it&#x27;s an invasive biopsy.)<p>If more data results in more unneeded biopsies, then just stop taking biopsies! It seems very obvious that the answer is to perform a series of MRI scans over a period of weeks or months, and track the size of the lump. If it&#x27;s growing rapidly (or more lumps appear), then you would perform a biopsy. I don&#x27;t even think you need machine learning for this. It just seems obvious that a quickly growing lump is cancer (almost by definition), so you need multiple scans over time to detect the rate of growth.<p>Is this a controversial opinion? Why is better to wear a metaphorical blindfold instead of just being smarter about what you do with the data?<p>Is this because MRIs are expensive and are in high demand, so it&#x27;s just not practical to do this?<p>EDIT: I updated my comment to remove &quot;more testing is always better&quot;.