The debate continues over computer-aided detection (CAD) and its overall accuracy across all of its principal applications – detecting cancerous lesions in breast, lung and colon. For each of these diseases, research has produced inconsistent findings on CAD’s diagnostic specificity, false positives rates, sensitivity and associated biopsy rates.

The term “2.0” has become the catch phrase for all things next-gen. But is it just meaningless marketing jargon or new conventional wisdom? Or might it simply represent a logical stream of consciousness – making the obvious connections and then harnessing collective intelligence?