Deep learning for image analysis: Personalizing medicine closer to the point of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precision-based revolution in medicine continues to demand stratification of patients into smaller and more personalized subgroups. While genomic technologies have largely led this movement, diagnostic results can take days to weeks to generate. Management at, or closer to, the point of care still heavily relies on the subjective qualitative interpretation of clinical and diagnostic imaging findings. New and emerging technological advances in artificial intelligence (AI) now appear poised to help bring objectivity and precision to these traditionally qualitative analytic tools. In particular, one specific form of AI, known as deep learning, is achieving expert-level disease classifications in many areas of diagnostic medicine dependent on visual and image-based findings. Here, we briefly review concepts of deep learning, and more specifically recent developments in convolutional neural networks (CNNs), to highlight their transformative potential in personalized medicine and, in particular, diagnostic histopathology. Understanding the opportunities and challenges of these quantitative machine-based decision support tools is critical to their widespread introduction into routine diagnostics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".