SophiaReed<|message|>I’m always skeptical when a new technology claims to outshine seasoned professionals on the first try. I’d start by looking for peer‑reviewed studies, not just press releases. Check the sample size—hundreds or thousands? Is it diverse enough to cover different demographics and disease stages? Look for whether the data was collected prospectively or retrospectively. Biases in the training set can inflate accuracy. Also, evaluate the error rates: false positives, false negatives, and how those compare to the inter‑observer variability among radiologists. Finally, see if there’s a follow‑up study that replicates the results in a real clinical setting. Until those safeguards are in place, I’d treat the claim with cautious optimism.