New artificial intelligence model agrees with interpretations of human medical technologists and microbiologists with extraordinary accuracy
Microbiology laboratories will be interested in news from Brescia University in Italy, where researchers reportedly have developed a deep learning model that can visually identify and analyze bacterial species in culture plates with a high level of agreement with interpretations made by medical technologists.
They initially trained and tested the system to digitally identify pathogens associated with urinary tract infections (UTIs). UTIs are the source for a large volume of clinical laboratory microbiological testing.
The system, known as DeepColony, uses hierarchical artificial intelligence technology. The researchers say hierarchical AI is better suited to complex decision-making than other approaches, such as generative AI.
In their Nature paper, the researchers explained that microbiologists use conventional methods to visually examine culture plates that contain bacterial colonies. The scientists hypothesize which species of bacteria are present, after which they test their hypothesis “by regrowing samples from each colony separately and then employing mass spectroscopy techniques,” to confirm their hypotheses.
However, DeepColony—which was designed for use with clinical laboratory automation systems—looks at high-resolution digital scans of cultured plates and attempts to identify the bacterial strains and analyze them in much the same way a microbiologist would. For example, it can identify species based on their appearance and determine which colonies are suitable for analysis, the researchers explained.
“Working on a large stream of clinical data, and a complete set of 32 pathogens, the proposed system is capable of effectively assisting plate interpretation with a surprising degree of accuracy in the widespread and demanding framework of urinary tract infections,” the study authors wrote. “Moreover, thanks to the rich species-related generated information, DeepColony can be used for developing trustworthy clinical decision support services in laboratory automation ecosystems from local to global scale.”
“Compared to the most common solutions based on single convolutional neural networks (CNN), multi-network architectures are attractive in our case because of their ability to fit into contexts where decision-making processes are stratified into a complex structure,” wrote the study’s lead author Alberto Signoroni, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Brescia, and his researcher team in their Nature paper. “The system must be designed to generate useful and easily interpretable information and to support expert decisions according to safety-by-design and human-in-the-loop policies, aiming at achieving cost-effectiveness and skill-empowerment respectively.” Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to follow the further development of this technology. (Photo copyright: University of Brescia.)
How Hierarchical AI Works
Writing in LinkedIn, patent attorney and self-described technology expert David Cain, JD, of Hauptman Ham, LLP, explained that hierarchical AI systems “are structured in layers, each with its own distinct role yet interconnected in a way that forms a cohesive whole. These systems are significant because they mirror the complexity of human decision-making processes, incorporating multiple levels of analysis and action. This multi-tiered approach allows for nuanced problem-solving and decision-making, akin to a seasoned explorer deftly navigating through a multifaceted terrain.”
DeepColony, the researchers wrote, consists of multiple convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that exchange information and cooperate with one another. The system is structured into five levels—labeled 0 through 4—each handling a different part of the analysis:
At level 0, the system determines the number of bacterial colonies and their locations on the plate.
At level 1, the system identifies “good colonies,” meaning those suitable for further identification and analysis.
At level 2, the system assigns each good colony to a bacterial species “based on visual appearance and growth characteristics,” the researchers wrote, referring to the determination as being “pathogen aware, similarity agnostic.”
The CNN used at this stage was trained by using images of 26,213 isolated colonies comprising 32 bacterial species, the researchers wrote in their paper. Most came from clinical laboratories, but some were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), a repository of biological materials and information resources available to researchers.
At level 3, the system attempts to improve accuracy by looking at the larger context of the plate. The goal here is to “determine if observed colonies are similar (pure culture) or different (mixed cultures),” the researchers wrote, describing this step as “similarity aware, pathogen agnostic.” This enables the system to recognize variants of the same strain, the researchers noted, and has the effect of reducing the number of strains identified by the system.
At this level, the system uses two “Siamese CNNs,” which were trained with a dataset of 200,000 image pairs.
Then, at level 4, the system “assesses the clinical significance of the entire plate,” the researchers added. Each plate is labeled as:
“Positive” (significant bacterial growth),
“No significant growth” (negative), or
“Contaminated,” meaning it has three or more “different colony morphologies without a particular pathogen that is prevalent over the others,” the researchers wrote.
If a plate is labeled as “positive,” it can be “further evaluated for possible downstream steps,” using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry or tests to determine susceptibility to antimicrobial measures, the researchers stated.
“This decision-making process takes into account not only the identification results but also adheres to the specific laboratory guidelines to ensure a proper supportive interpretation in the context of use,” the researchers wrote.
Nearly 100% Agreement with Medical Technologists
To gauge DeepColony’s accuracy, the researchers tested it on a dataset of more than 5,000 urine cultures from a US laboratory. They then compared its analyses with those of human medical technologists who had analyzed the same samples.
Agreement was 99.2% for no-growth cultures, 95.6% for positive cultures, and 77.1% for contaminated or mixed growth cultures, the researchers wrote.
The lower agreement for contaminated cultures was due to “a deliberately precautionary behavior, which is related to ‘safety by design’ criteria,” the researchers noted.
Lead study author Alberto Signoroni, PhD, Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Brescia, wrote in Nature that many of the plates identified by medical technologists as “contaminated” were labeled as “positive” by DeepColony. “We maximized true negatives while allowing for some false positives, so that DeepColony [can] focus on the most relevant or critical cases,” he said.
Will DeepColony replace medical technologists in clinical laboratories any time soon? Not likely. But the Brescia University study indicates the direction AI in healthcare is headed, with high accuracy and increasing speed. The day may not be far off when pathologists and microbiologists regularly employ AI algorithms to diagnose disease.
Spectroscopic technique was 91% accurate in identifying the notoriously difficult-to-diagnose disease suggesting a clinical diagnostic test for CFS may be possible
Most clinical pathologists know that, despite their best efforts, scientists have failed to come up with a reliable clinical laboratory blood test for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), the condition commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)—at least not one that’s ready for clinical use.
But now an international team of researchers at the University of Oxford has developed an experimental non-invasive test for CFS using a simple blood draw, artificial intelligence (AI), and a spectroscopic technique known as Raman spectroscopy.
The approach uses a laser to identify unique cellular “fingerprints” associated with the disease, according to an Oxford news release.
“When Raman was added to a panel of potentially diagnostic outputs, we improved the ability of the model to identify the ME/CFS patients and controls,” Karl Morten, PhD, Director of Graduate Studies and Principal Investigator at Oxford University, told Advanced Science News. Morton led the research team along with Wei Huang, PhD, Professor of Biological Engineering at Oxford.
The researchers claim the test is 91% accurate in differentiating between healthy people, disease controls, and ME/CFS patients, and 84% accurate in differentiating between mild, moderate, and severe cases, the new release states.
“This could be a game changer as we are unsure what causes [ME/CFS] and diagnosis occurs perhaps 10 to 20 years after the condition has started to develop,” said Karl Morten, PhD, Director of Graduate Studies and Principal Investigator at Oxford University. “An early diagnosis might allow us to identify what is going wrong with the potential to fix it before the more long-term degenerative changes are observed.” Though this research may not lead to a simple clinical laboratory blood test for CFS, any non-invasive diagnostic test would enable doctors to help many people. (Photo copyright: Oxford University.)
Need for an ME/CFS Test
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes ME/CFS as “a serious, long-term illness that affects many body systems,” with symptoms that include severe fatigue and sleep difficulties. Citing an Institute of Medicine (IoM) report, the agency estimates that 836,000 to 2.5 million Americans suffer from the condition but notes that most cases have not been diagnosed.
“One of the difficulties is the complexity of the disease,” said Jonas Bergquist, MD, PhD, Director of the ME/CFS Research Center of Uppsala University in Sweden, told Advanced Science News. “Because it’s a multi-organ disorder, you get symptoms from many different regions of the body with different onsets, though it’s common with post viral syndrome to have different overlapping [symptoms] that disguise the diagnosis.” Bergquist was not involved with the Oxford study.
One key to the Oxford researchers’ technique is the use of multiple artificial intelligence models to analyze the spectral profiles. “These signatures are complex and by eye there are not necessarily clear features that separate ME/CFS patients from other groups,” Morten told Advanced Science News.
“The AI looks at this data and attempts to find features which can separate the groups,” he continued. “Different AI methods find different features in the data. Individually, each method is not that successful at assigning an unknown sample to the correct group. However, when we combine the different methods, we produce a model which can assign the subjects to the different groups very accurately.”
Without a reliable test, “diagnosis of the condition is difficult, with most patients relying on self-report, questionnaires, and subjective measures to receive a diagnosis,” the Oxford press release noted.
But developing such a test has been challenging, Advanced Science News noted.
How Oxford’s Raman Technique Works
Raman spectroscopy uses a laser to determine the “vibrational modes of molecules,” according to the Oxford press release.
“When a laser beam is directed at a cell, some of the scattered photons undergo frequency shifts due to energy exchanges with the cell’s molecular components,” the press release stated. “Raman micro-spectroscopy detects these shifted photons, providing a non-invasive method for single cell analysis. The resulting single cell Raman spectra serve as a unique fingerprint, revealing the intrinsic and biochemical properties and indicating the physiological and metabolic state of the cell.”
The researchers employed the technique on blood samples from 98 subjects, including 61 ME/CFS patients, 16 healthy controls, and 21 controls with multiple sclerosis (MS), Advanced Science reported.
The Oxford scientists focused their attention on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), as previous studies found that these cells showed “reduced energetic function” in ME/CFS patients. “With this evidence, the team proposed that single-cell analysis of PBMCs might reveal differences in the structure and morphology in ME/CFS patients compared to healthy controls and other disease groups such as multiple sclerosis,” the press release states.
Clinical Laboratory Blood Processing and the Oxford Raman Technique
Oxford’s Raman spectroscopic technique “only requires a small blood sample which could be developed as a point-of-care test perhaps from one drop of blood,” the researchers wrote. However, Advanced Science News pointed out that required laser microscopy equipment costs more than $250,000.
In their Advanced Science paper, the researchers note that the test could be made more widely available by transferring blood samples collected by local clinical laboratories to diagnostic centers that have the needed hardware.
“Alternatively, a compact system containing portable Raman instruments could be developed, which would be much cheaper than a standard Raman microscope, and [which] incorporated with microfluidic systems to stream cells through a Raman laser for detection, eliminating the need for lengthy blood sample processing,” the researchers wrote.
They noted that the technique could be adapted to test for other chronic conditions as well, such as MS, fibromyalgia, Lyme disease, and long COVID.
“Our paper is very much a starting point for future research,” Morten told Advanced Science News. “Larger cohorts need to be studied, and if Raman proves useful, we need to think carefully about how a test might be developed.”
Bergquist agreed, stating it’s “not necessarily something you would see in a doctor’s office. It requires a lot of advanced data analysis to use—I still see it as a research methodology. But in the long run, it could be developed into a tool that could be used in a more simplistic way.”
Though a useable diagnostic test may be far off, clinical laboratories should consider how they can aid in ME/CFS research.
Genetic engineers at the lab used the new tool to generate a catalog of 71 million possible missense variants, classifying 89% as either benign or pathogenic
Genetic engineers continue to use artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning to develop research tools that have implications for clinical laboratories. The latest development involves Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence lab which has created an AI tool that, they say, can predict whether a single-letter substitution in DNA—known as a missense variant (aka, missense mutation)—is likely to cause disease.
The Google engineers used their new model—dubbed AlphaMissense—to generate a catalog of 71 million possible missense variants. They were able to classify 89% as likely to be either benign or pathogenic mutations. That compares with just 0.1% that have been classified using conventional methods, according to the DeepMind engineers.
This is yet another example of how Google is investing to develop solutions for healthcare and medical care. In this case, DeepMind might find genetic sequences that are associated with disease or health conditions. In turn, these genetic sequences could eventually become biomarkers that clinical laboratories could use to help physicians make earlier, more accurate diagnoses and allow faster interventions that improve patient care.
“AI tools that can accurately predict the effect of variants have the power to accelerate research across fields from molecular biology to clinical and statistical genetics,” wrote Google DeepMind engineers Jun Cheng, PhD (left), and Žiga Avsec, PhD (right), in a blog post describing the new tool. Clinical laboratories benefit from the diagnostic biomarkers generated by this type of research. (Photo copyrights: LinkedIn.)
AI’s Effect on Genetic Research
Genetic experiments to identify which mutations cause disease are both costly and time-consuming, Google DeepMind engineers Jun Cheng, PhD, and Žiga Avsec, PhD, wrote in a blog post. However, artificial intelligence sped up that process considerably.
“By using AI predictions, researchers can get a preview of results for thousands of proteins at a time, which can help to prioritize resources and accelerate more complex studies,” they noted.
Of all possible 71 million variants, approximately 6%, or four million, have already been seen in humans, they wrote, noting that the average person carries more than 9,000. Most are benign, “but others are pathogenic and can severely disrupt protein function,” causing diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and cancer.
“A missense variant is a single letter substitution in DNA that results in a different amino acid within a protein,” Cheng and Avsec wrote in the blog post. “If you think of DNA as a language, switching one letter can change a word and alter the meaning of a sentence altogether. In this case, a substitution changes which amino acid is translated, which can affect the function of a protein.”
In the Google DeepMind study, AlphaMissense predicted that 57% of the 71 million variants are “likely benign,” 32% are “likely pathogenic,” and 11% are “uncertain.”
The AlphaMissense model is adapted from an earlier model called AlphaFold which uses amino acid genetic sequences to predict the structure of proteins.
“AlphaMissense was fed data on DNA from humans and closely related primates to learn which missense mutations are common, and therefore probably benign, and which are rare and potentially harmful,” The Guardian reported. “At the same time, the program familiarized itself with the ‘language’ of proteins by studying millions of protein sequences and learning what a ‘healthy’ protein looks like.”
The model assigned each variant a score between 0 and 1 to rate the likelihood of pathogenicity [the potential for a pathogen to cause disease]. “The continuous score allows users to choose a threshold for classifying variants as pathogenic or benign that matches their accuracy requirements,” Avsec and Cheng wrote in their blog post.
However, they also acknowledged that it doesn’t indicate exactly how the variation causes disease.
The engineers cautioned that the predictions in the catalog are not intended for clinical use. Instead, they “should be interpreted with other sources of evidence.” However, “this work has the potential to improve the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders, and help discover new disease-causing genes,” they noted.
Genomics England Sees a Helpful Tool
BBC noted that AlphaMissense has been tested by Genomics England, which works with the UK’s National Health Service. “The new tool is really bringing a new perspective to the data,” Ellen Thomas, PhD, Genomics England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, told the BBC. “It will help clinical scientists make sense of genetic data so that it is useful for patients and for their clinical teams.”
AlphaMissense is “a big step forward,” Ewan Birney, PhD, Deputy Director General of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) told the BBC. “It will help clinical researchers prioritize where to look to find areas that could cause disease.”
Other experts, however, who spoke with MIT Technology Review were less enthusiastic.
Heidi Rehm, PhD, co-director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute, suggested that the DeepMind engineers overstated the certainty of the model’s predictions. She told the publication that she was “disappointed” that they labeled the variants as benign or pathogenic.
“The models are improving, but none are perfect, and they still don’t get you to pathogenic or not,” she said.
“Typically, experts don’t declare a mutation pathogenic until they have real-world data from patients, evidence of inheritance patterns in families, and lab tests—information that’s shared through public websites of variants such as ClinVar,” the MIT article noted.
Is AlphaMissense a Biosecurity Risk?
Although DeepMind has released its catalog of variations, MIT Technology Review notes that the lab isn’t releasing the entire AI model due to what it describes as a “biosecurity risk.”
The concern is that “bad actors” could try using it on non-human species, DeepMind said. But one anonymous expert described the restrictions “as a transparent effort to stop others from quickly deploying the model for their own uses,” the MIT article noted.
And so, genetics research takes a huge step forward thanks to Google DeepMind, artificial intelligence, and deep learning. Clinical laboratories and pathologists may soon have useful new tools that help healthcare provider diagnose diseases. Time will tell. But the developments are certain worth watching.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to stay alert to the concerns voiced by tech experts about the need to exercise caution when using generative AI to assist medical diagnoses
GPTs are an integral part of the framework of a generative artificial intelligence that creates text, images, and other media using generative models. These neural network models can learn the patterns and structure of inputted information and then develop new data that contains similar characteristics.
Through their proposal, the AMA has developed principles and recommendations surrounding the benefits and potentially harmful consequences of relying on AI-generated medical advice and content to advance diagnoses.
“We’re trying to look around the corner for our patients to understand the promise and limitations of AI,” said Alexander Ding, MD (above), AMA Trustee and Associate Vice President for Physician Strategy and Medical Affairs at Humana, in a press release. “There is a lot of uncertainty about the direction and regulatory framework for this use of AI that has found its way into the day-to-day practice of medicine.” Clinical laboratory professionals following advances in AI may want to remain informed on the use of generative AI solutions in healthcare. (Photo copyright: American Medical Association.)
Preventing Spread of Mis/Disinformation
GPTs are “a family of neural network models that uses the transformer architecture and is a key advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) powering generative AI applications such as ChatGPT,” according to Amazon Web Services.
In addition to creating human-like text and content, GPTs have the ability to answer questions in a conversational manner. They can analyze language queries and then predict high-quality responses based on their understanding of the language. GPTs can perform this task after being trained with billions of parameters on massive language datasets and then generate long responses, not just the next word in a sequence.
“AI holds the promise of transforming medicine,” said diagnostic and interventional radiologist Alexander Ding, MD, AMA Trustee and Associate Vice President for Physician Strategy and Medical Affairs at Humana, in an AMA press release.
“We don’t want to be chasing technology. Rather, as scientists, we want to use our expertise to structure guidelines, and guardrails to prevent unintended consequences, such as baking in bias and widening disparities, dissemination of incorrect medical advice, or spread of misinformation or disinformation,” he added.
The AMA plans to work with the federal government and other appropriate organizations to advise policymakers on the optimal ways to use AI in healthcare to protect patients from misleading AI-generated data that may or may not be validated, accurate, or relevant.
Advantages and Risks of AI in Medicine
The AMA’s proposal was prompted by AMA-affiliated organizations that stressed concerns about the lack of regulatory oversight for GPTs. They are encouraging healthcare professionals to educate patients about the advantages and risks of AI in medicine.
“AI took a huge leap with large language model tool and generative models, so all of the work that has been done up to this point in terms of regulatory and governance frameworks will have to be treated or at least reviewed with this new lens,” Sha Edathumparampil, Corporate Vice President, Digital and Data, Baptist Health South Florida, told Healthcare Brew.
According to the AMA press release, “the current limitations create potential risks for physicians and patients and should be used with appropriate caution at this time. AI-generated fabrications, errors, or inaccuracies can harm patients, and physicians need to be acutely aware of these risks and added liability before they rely on unregulated machine-learning algorithms and tools.”
According to the AMA press release, the organization will propose state and federal regulations for AI tools at next year’s annual meeting in Chicago.
In a July AMA podcast, AMA’s President, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, stressed that more must be done through regulation and development to bolster trust in these new technologies.
“There’s a lot of discomfort around the use of these tools among Americans with the idea of AI being used in their own healthcare,” Ehrenfeld said. “There was a 2023 Pew Research Center poll [that said] 60% of Americans would feel uncomfortable if their own healthcare provider relied on AI to do things like diagnose disease or recommend a treatment.”
WHO Issues Cautions about Use of AI in Healthcare
In May, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a statement advocating for caution when implementing AI-generated large language GPT models into healthcare.
A current example of such a GPT is ChatGPT, a large language-based model (LLM) that enables users to refine and lead conversations towards a desired length, format, style, level of detail and language. Organizations across industries are now utilizing GPT models for Question and Answer bots for customers, text summarization, and content generation and search features.
“Precipitous adoption of untested systems could lead to errors by healthcare workers, cause harm to patients, erode trust in AI, and thereby undermine (or delay) the potential long-term benefits and uses of such technologies around the world,” commented WHO in the statement.
WHO’s concerns regarding the need for prudence and oversight in the use of AI technologies include:
Data used to train AI may be biased, which could pose risks to health, equity, and inclusiveness.
LLMs generate responses that can appear authoritative and plausible, but which may be completely incorrect or contain serious errors.
LLMs may be trained on data for which consent may not have been given.
LLMs may not be able to protect sensitive data that is provided to an application to generate a response.
LLMs can be misused to generate and disseminate highly convincing disinformation in the form of text, audio, or video that may be difficult for people to differentiate from reliable health content.
Tech Experts Recommended Caution
Generative AI will continue to evolve. Therefore, clinical laboratory professionals may want to keep a keen eye on advances in AI technology and GPTs in healthcare diagnosis.
“While generative AI holds tremendous potential to transform various industries, it also presents significant challenges and risks that should not be ignored,” wrote Edathumparampil in an article he penned for CXOTECH Magazine. “With the right strategy and approach, generative AI can be a powerful tool for innovation and differentiation, helping businesses to stay ahead of the competition and better serve their customers.”
GPT’s may eventually be a boon to healthcare providers, including clinical laboratories, and pathology groups. But for the moment, caution is recommended.
Proof-of-concept study ‘highlights that using AI to integrate different types of clinically informed data to predict disease outcomes is feasible’ researchers say
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are—in stepwise fashion—making progress in demonstrating value in the world of pathology diagnostics. But human anatomic pathologists are generally required for a prognosis. Now, in a proof-of-concept study, researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston have developed a method that uses AI models to integrate multiple types of data from disparate sources to accurately predict patient outcomes for 14 different types of cancer.
The process also uncovered “the predictive bases of features used to predict patient risk—a property that could be used to uncover new biomarkers,” according to Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (GEN).
Should these research findings become clinically viable, anatomic pathologists may gain powerful new AI tools specifically designed to help them predict what type of outcome a cancer patient can expect.
“Experts analyze many pieces of evidence to predict how well a patient may do. These early examinations become the basis of making decisions about enrolling in a clinical trial or specific treatment regimens,” said Faisal Mahmood, PhD (above) in a Brigham press release. “But that means that this multimodal prediction happens at the level of the expert. We’re trying to address the problem computationally,” he added. Should they be proven clinically-viable through additional studies, these findings could lead to useful tools that help anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists more accurately predict what type of outcomes cancer patient may experience. (Photo copyright: Harvard.)
AI-based Prognostics in Pathology and Clinical Laboratory Medicine
The team at Brigham constructed their AI model using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a publicly available resource which contains data on many types of cancer. They then created a deep learning-based algorithm that examines information from different data sources.
Pathologists traditionally depend on several distinct sources of data, such as pathology images, genomic sequencing, and patient history to diagnose various cancers and help develop prognoses.
For their research, Mahmood and his colleagues trained and validated their AI algorithm on 6,592 H/E (hematoxylin and eosin) whole slide images (WSIs) from 5,720 cancer patients. Molecular profile features, which included mutation status, copy-number variation, and RNA sequencing expression, were also inputted into the model to measure and explain relative risk of cancer death.
The scientists “evaluated the model’s efficacy by feeding it data sets from 14 cancer types as well as patient histology and genomic data. Results demonstrated that the models yielded more accurate patient outcome predictions than those incorporating only single sources of information,” states a Brigham press release.
“This work sets the stage for larger healthcare AI studies that combine data from multiple sources,” said Faisal Mahmood, PhD, Associate Professor, Division of Computational Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; and Associate Member, Cancer Program, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, in the press release. “In a broader sense, our findings emphasize a need for building computational pathology prognostic models with much larger datasets and downstream clinical trials to establish utility.”
Future Prognostics Based on Multiple Data Sources
The Brigham researchers also generated a research tool they dubbed the Pathology-omics Research Platform for Integrative Survival Estimation (PORPOISE). This tool serves as an interactive platform that can yield prognostic markers detected by the algorithm for thousands of patients across various cancer types.
The researchers believe their algorithm reveals another role for AI technology in medical care, but that more research is needed before their model can be implemented clinically. Larger data sets will have to be examined and the researchers plan to use more types of patient information, such as radiology scans, family histories, and electronic medical records in future tests of their AI technology.
“Future work will focus on developing more focused prognostic models by curating larger multimodal datasets for individual disease models, adapting models to large independent multimodal test cohorts, and using multimodal deep learning for predicting response and resistance to treatment,” the Cancer Cell paper states.
“As research advances in sequencing technologies, such as single-cell RNA-seq, mass cytometry, and spatial transcriptomics, these technologies continue to mature and gain clinical penetrance, in combination with whole-slide imaging, and our approach to understanding molecular biology will become increasingly spatially resolved and multimodal,” the researchers concluded.
Anatomic pathologists may find the Brigham and Women’s Hospital research team’s findings intriguing. An AI tool that integrates data from disparate sources, analyzes that information, and provides useful insights, could one day help them provide more accurate cancer prognoses and improve the care of their patients.
