[HN Gopher] "Amateur" programmer fought cancer with 50 Nvidia Ge... ___________________________________________________________________ "Amateur" programmer fought cancer with 50 Nvidia Geforce 1080Ti Author : coolwulf Score : 667 points Date : 2022-05-20 15:54 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (howardchen.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (howardchen.substack.com) | ChicagoBoy11 wrote: | What a service to society. Hats off to you to using your skills | like that! | themantalope wrote: | This is very cool work. I'm a radiologist, I also work on | developing ML/AI based systems for cancer detection and | characterization. Literally just took a break for a few minutes | from creating some labels and saw this as the top HN post! | | I think in some ways making the model available online can be | good, but in other ways could be harmful too. Very complicated | topic. | | Gong Xi coolwulf, Zhu Ni Ji Xu Cheng Gong . | DantesKite wrote: | I've always felt the "could be harmful" was a rationalization | by radiologists worried about their job security since it's | easily mitigated with a warning and multiple tests. | | And especially because in the future, most radiology work will | be done by software. It's just a matter of whether it's 10 | years or 100 years from now. | kashunstva wrote: | > I've always felt the "could be harmful" was a | rationalization by radiologists worried about their job | security | | Surely concern for the well-being of the patient figures in | there somewhere... | | Or imagine this: A liver lesion is incidentally discovered on | your abdominal CT performed for unrelated reasons. Its | radiographic characteristics are equivocal. Additional | imaging studies fail to completely exclude the possibility of | a liver malignancy. You undergo a biopsy. But the biopsy is | complicated by hemorrhage. Surgery is required. You develop a | post-operative nosocomial infection. etc. etc. | | To the extent that risks along this chain of unfortunate | events is known, yes, warnings could put some of the | quantified decision making in the patient's hands. Well, | except for the rampant innumeracy in the general | population... | anamax wrote: | Perhaps a better example is prostate biopsies. They have a | significant risk of producing incontinence or impotence. | themantalope wrote: | This is a real scenario that happens regularly. | [deleted] | ska wrote: | > "could be harmful" was a rationalization | | This topic (breast screening) is a good example due to the | sheer scale. If you increase the work-up rate by even a | smallish amount, you are statistically pretty much guaranteed | to kill people who did not have the disease. How this | balances about gain (i.e. save other lives) is not obvious. | Figuring out the "right" way to do this is real work. | lhl wrote: | Also a good example because there's actually been recent | push back on mammography because the risks may outweigh the | rewards (especially in younger age brackets). More testing | does not automatically equal better outcomes. Here's one | summary from the Nordic Cochrane Center (for those that | don't know Cochrane is one of the gold standard | organizations for evaluating the quality of biomedical | research via systematic reviews | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation) ): | | Gotzsche PC. Mammography screening is harmful and should be | abandoned. J R Soc Med. 2015;108(9):341-345. | doi:10.1177/0141076815602452 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4582264/ | themantalope wrote: | Extremely important, and is the most important question to | ask in any screening scenario. | | It's not the case the more screening is always better. | There are plenty of screening regimes that you've never | heard about because the trial data didn't support it. | quasarj wrote: | Yeah, I've read all the arguments about harm, and I just | don't buy it. I'd get a CT scan every year if I could | convince someone to sign off on it. There is absolutely no | substitute for knowing. | selectodude wrote: | You'd dramatically raise your risk of cancer from x-ray | exposure for almost zero clinical benefit. | quasarj wrote: | Yeah, that is the only concern. I guess whole-body MR | would be fine too. I'd be willing to lay in the tube for | 20 hours a year to know that I'm at least structurally | normal still. | ska wrote: | > Yeah, that is the only concern. | | It really isn't. Your chances of negative consequence for | unnecessary follow up procedures would rapidly become | significant. | KennyBlanken wrote: | > Yeah, I've read all the arguments about harm, and I just | don't buy it. | | "I have no medical background whatsoever but I do not buy | undisputed medical science." | | > I'd get a CT scan every year if I could convince someone | to sign off on it | | 20mSv of unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure _a year_ , | what could possibly go wrong? That whole-body CT scan is | equivalent to getting _at least_ EIGHTY chest x-rays, and | ten times what a uranium miner receives in a year, and well | within the range where an increased risk of cancer is | noticeable in epidemiological data. | | Case and point why this tool should not be generally | available. | kashunstva wrote: | > I'd get a CT scan every year | | You would choose annual body CT even if outcomes-based | evidence showed no benefit? | | Even among those at highest risk for lung carcinoma, | studies of annual screening chest CT do not uniformly show | improved disease-specific survival as compared to an | unscreened but otherwise matched cohort. | themantalope wrote: | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1102873 | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762603/ | | What I found mind blowing when I first read these studies | (particularly the second link) is that the positive- | predictive value of the CT screen was only 3.8% for lung | nodules that were 4mm or larger in size. Basically just | means we find all kinds of lung abnormalities all the | time that "could be cancer" but aren't. | | Keep in mind, that the screening criteria was people over | age 65 who had a 30+ pack-year smoking history (1 pack- | year = smoking 1 pack of cigarettes per day in one year), | and had to have smoked within the last 15 years. | | I can also tell you from doing CT lung biopsies that it's | not a procedure to take lightly. Lot of important | structures in the chest. | quasarj wrote: | Absolutely. Those studies show no improved survival | across cohorts. Not for individuals. My only chance of | living is to know. That's worth it for me. | | I mean, plus I have extreme health anxiety, and I've had | doctors say "nah you're too young, we don't need to test | for that" and later it turned out I _did_ have kidney | failure at 35. | themantalope wrote: | Until you've had an unnecessary biopsy that kills you :) | martincmartin wrote: | How could it be harmful? Is it just because of errors, i.e. | false negative means person won't talk to doctor and won't be | caught early; false positive means needless worry, maybe | tarnish more general medical industry? Or something else? | DantesKite wrote: | Well this radiologist could lose their job to an algorithm. | That's pretty harmful to the industry. | [deleted] | themantalope wrote: | I'm not worried. If things are that different, the rest of | the economy will be too. The job will also evolve over | time, like any other profession that changes with new | technology. | | It's our job (as radiologists and engineers) to shape that | in a way that benefits patients. | tryptophan wrote: | If AI automates radiology, it will automate the rest of | the world first. | themantalope wrote: | Yeah, those are part of the issue. For example on the | webpage, there is no discussion about the false | negative/positive rate of the system, and no comparison or | link to an academic paper that compares the performance of | the system to a trained breast radiologist. | | Does a patient take a negative exam as "I'm good!" and forego | actually seeing a doctor, or having the exam read by a | radiologist? | | A positive result is also a challenging situation. I've | talked to patients before after diagnosing them, and as you | could expect most people are shocked, scared or they want to | know what they should do next. | | In breast radiology specifically (at least in the US) there | is a well defined reporting lexicon and classification | system. From what I can tell, the system does not use the | lexicon or BI-RADS classification. | https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/BI-RADS/BIRADS- | Re... | | Breast cancer can be very subtle, and can be hard to figure | out, especially if a patient has had surgery or other benign | abnormalities. https://radiopaedia.org/cases/development-of- | dcis?case_id=de... | | Diagnostic and screening images also undergo rigorous QA for | the entire system. Does the model have some kind of QA built | in? | | There is a just a small disclaimer at the top that says "we | will not store your data on the server. please do not worry | about privacy issues". Not exactly a formal or legal binding | agreement. | | In fact, you can't even connect over https. | http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/upload | | These are just a few things that come to mind off the top of | my head. Like I said before, I do think that what coolwulf | works on and is trying to do is good, and in the long run can | help doctors better characterize findings and help patients. | But like anything in health care, there are a lot of edge | cases and side effects that you have to think about. The | stakes are also very high. | evanmoran wrote: | I think care with messaging positive/negative rate is the | right reasoning for a productized version of this | positioned as an alternative to human radiologists. The | difference here is that we know the user has a scan of | their body and we can be pretty sure they couldn't have | gotten the scan without doctors already being involved. | | So we don't have to worry as much about the "Does a patient | take a negative exam as 'I'm good!'", because in the normal | flow of medicine that gets this scan the doctor will check | the scan for them either way. The website probably could | have better explanations of this, but most likely negatives | will already be double checked independently by doctors, | and positives will most likely be handled correctly by | bringing it to their current current attention to double | check the scan or run more tests. | generalizations wrote: | > Does a patient take a negative exam as "I'm good!" and | forego actually seeing a doctor, or having the exam read by | a radiologist? | | I wonder how the false positive/false negative rates for | this tool compare to that of a trained human. At some point | we may reach parity, in which case what's the harm of | trusting the automated result? | themantalope wrote: | Secondary follow up. | | I don't think that a human reader in the loop will be | going away for a long time. Sure, they can be at parity, | but does a combined read have better results? This is an | active research question. | | I think what will happen is that over time, human | interpreters and AI systems will "co-evolve" in a sense, | where people will pick up on where models are wrong and | also learn how to use models to understand their own | blind spots. These are also active research topics that | are in their infancy. | themantalope wrote: | https://www.rsna.org/news/2022/march/AI-Potential-in- | Breast-... | | EDIT: To be clear, I believe that this is a different | group of authors from coolwulf. Pubmed link: | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35348377/ | quasarj wrote: | To be fair, how is a patient going to get a mammogram or | xray without having seen a doctor? | dekhn wrote: | The consequences are false positives and negatives in cancer | detection are well known (easily googled), and are actually | extremely important when looking at cancer treatment in large | populations. You nailed the most important ones. | ska wrote: | >Very complicated topic. | | This is very true. Data availability (and moreso, label | availability) is the biggest barrier to improvement here I | suspect [ thanks for labeling!]. Access being another. Using a | public site to bootstrap that could do very interesting things. | On the other hand, public access to a poorly RA/QA'd algorithm | could also cause more trouble than help, easily. | themantalope wrote: | Label availability is a big problem. There are some academic | collaborations for some diseases which is making this better, | but datasets in general are minuscule compared to what is | available for more general computer vision applications. | | I am hopeful though. Few-shot learning and self supervision | are very active questions right now and there are a lot of | papers in the medical AI field that are getting published on | these topics. | | I'm personally interested in liver cancer, which does not | have large, well-curated and shared database of cases. | | Sharing data gets tricky, especially in the US. Labels I'm | working with and creating (at least at this point) are for my | own research, which won't be shared publicly any time soon. | ska wrote: | > n the medical AI field that are getting published on | these topics. | | Most of what I've seen isn't very promising. The energy in | these research areas are because it would be so much | cheaper than the "right" way, far more than because of the | likelihood of success. And also perversely, because it's | hard for the academic researchers to get enough data to do | other studies :) NB: I'm not saying there is nothing useful | coming out of the learning literature in last few years, | just that it a) isn't a silver bullet and b) is often being | misapplied in these areas anyway. | | Label quality and availability isn't the only big problem | though. Many data sets exhibit problematic sampling bias, | as well as being order(s) of magnitude too small, because | of the way they are gathered and how access is granted. | themantalope wrote: | Problem is though for most of these diseases there just | aren't the number of samples available, period, to do it | the "right way". HCC for example, has around 50K new | cases/year in the US. Even if every single case went into | a repository with perfect labels, would still take a long | time to collect that info. Not to mention you need either | a radiologist (4 year of medical school + 6 years of | post-school training) or a very skilled and experienced | technician to label the data. | | Not to mention imaging protocols are not standardized, | and the imaging technology is also evolving so scans we | do today may not be "correct" or standard in 5-10 years. | ska wrote: | Definitely diseases have different challenges. Breast | cancer screening being a notable outlier as far as data | availabilty. For some diseases ML is probably always | going to be problematic although may help in diagnostics | mostly by helping get rid of other possibilities. | | I suspect we have similar overall views of the problem, | but I'm pretty strongly in camp that recent advances in | ML/AI are mostly really driven by data & label | availability, not algorithmic advances - this colors | where I think the wins to be had in medical ML can happen | most easily. Either way though the non-technical barriers | seem clearly higher than the technical ones still. | themantalope wrote: | Second follow up. | | Results are not impressive until they are :) | | It's certainly not a solved problem, and it's easy to | have a pessimistic view now but I'm generally bullish on | where things will be 10 years from now. | ska wrote: | > Results are not impressive until they are :) | | True! I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from trying. | | On the other hand, I think it would be a huge mistake to | trust that fancy learning approaches will solve | everything so we shouldn't try and improve access and | labling. Getting better there is still by far the most | high probability of successful impact, imo. | tfgg wrote: | What peer review or regulatory approval process has this been | through? Seems pretty irresponsible -- there are many notorious | pitfalls encountered with ML for medical imaging. You shouldn't | play with people's lives. | bsder wrote: | In addition, these kinds of things will still miss _lobular_ ( | "normal" cancers are ductal) breast cancers as they don't form | lumps. | | 15% of the women with breast cancer are waiting for a non- | invasize diagnostic imaging system that can see their cancer. | The only thing that can see these is an MRI with gadolinium. | And that gadolinium contrast causes issues in about 1 in 1000 | women, so it can't be used as a general screen. | mromanuk wrote: | This is like taking your temperature at home, are you making a | diagnostic yourself? Not quite. But you can know some symptoms | and take action (going to the doctor) maybe with less anxiety | | edit: grammar | KennyBlanken wrote: | A thermometer mostly tells you if you have an infection, and | how close you are to your body temperature becoming a | medically urgent or life-threatening situation. | | Not even remotely the same thing. | Thaxll wrote: | What's the chance of taking the wrong temperature though? | mordae wrote: | Pretty high, actually. | tfgg wrote: | Thermometers are well understood, simple devices, and there | are other complementary checks (e.g. does my forehead feel | hot) if they fail. | | This project might lead to people thinking they're in the | clear and not seek appropriate medical treatment, or be | overtreated due to an error. You should always talk to a | qualified doctor if you're concerned about your health, and | not use projects like these for decision making. | arbitrandomuser wrote: | I don't see how a passive scan like this can be harmful . | Ofcourse if it does show a positive one should confirm | further with a biopsy or other standard confirmation | diagnostic. As for false negatives... If you feel something | is wrong you should get it checked thoroughly anyway . | dekhn wrote: | you literally just said the scan has no value. THe point | of a scan like this is to have absurdly low false | negative and positive rates so that it's actionable. | Unactionable medical diagnostics are worthless and just | cost (money, fuel, time). | tfgg wrote: | So you should ignore it and see a doctor regardless. | Arisaka1 wrote: | In an ideal world, that would be the case. However, | people aren't 100% rational agents motivated by logic. | | My aunt was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis which led | her to lose her eyesight from her left eye, because she | refused to get a thorough checkup by a professional, and | even today whenever I tell her that I visited the doctor | for an issue she has... not very good words to say | (something something "you are a chicken, you're | hypochodriac etc). And I'm saying this without | entertaining the probability of her visiting a | professional who just happened to be in a bad day, which | could potentialy lead to a wrong diagnosis. | | I've been hunting down my own diagnosis for symptoms | everyone seems to tell me that aren't serious (nail | discoloration and a 24/7 headache that feels like my | arteries are pulsing, which lasts for YEARS, cold | fingertips during the winter, and more). | | I get what you're trying to say and I agree with the | general message. However, more checkpoints to catch a | potential failure are good. For example, if someone were | to make a take-at-home device which scans nailfold | capillaries (no reason for something like that to exist) | I'd get that in a heartbeat. I'm being actively ignored | by every medical professional that I have visited, and if | I'm not ignored they give the minimum amount of | attention, kind of like "well, it's not like you're dying | so who cares?" | | Fair note: I'm from Europe. | arbitrandomuser wrote: | If you don't feel good yes you should see a doctor | regardless. Let's say you get a scan every year . If the | scan is able to detect something earlier than a | radiologist is able to identify i think it's worth paying | attention to. | kelnos wrote: | I agree with you, but what's most important is the impression | that the average person who uses it will have. And I don't | think most people would think of this as like "taking your | temperature at home". I think most people who might upload | their x-ray scans would take this a lot more seriously. | | A false positive could create a lot of anxiety and emotional | distress, and the patient might need to go to 2, 3, or 4 | other doctors to get second opinions before they feel | comfortable that they really don't have cancer. | | A false negative could be even worse. A patient might think | "oh, the official-looking online thing said I don't have | cancer, so I don't need to wait for or consider a human | radiologist's results", and not believe they need treatment. | | I think it's very important that people understand that -- | until more research is done -- this is still not a substitute | for having a human look at your x-rays. If we could be | reasonably sure that everyone (or at least a very large | majority) understood this when using this tool, then I think | people would have far fewer objections. But I don't think | that's the case. | | Having said that, I think it's safe to assume that this tool | has saved lives, so it's almost certainly been a net positive | for people. | Mikhail_K wrote: | I don't understand why this comment is downvoted. Automated | screening of radiological images by means of neural net is an | extensively researched topic. Ten years ago there had been | predictions that such automated screening will displace the | radiologists, but that clearly did not happen. | | For instance, this article is silent on false positive/false | negative rates of the software. There is no comparison with | other research. It reads like a corporate press release | promoting a product. | hackernewds wrote: | The quotations around "amateur" should be moved to "fought". | Nonetheless, it's encouraging that this level of research can | be executed at home, however the strict burden of proof | required should still be maintained. | zmmmmm wrote: | Well, he was director of R&D for a medical imaging company | and worked directly with academia. So I think its | appropriate to contextualise the "amateur" because his work | looked much more amateur than it really was. | zmmmmm wrote: | In this case I feel better about it because there is a natural | limitation in that most people doing this will only have the | scan because they are getting tested through a real clinical | process. So effectively they are getting "standard of care" | treatment implicitly, and all this does is accelerate their | response to true positives. The worst case scenario is a false | positive gives them a lot of anxiety / costs them money through | trying to accelerate their real diagnosis only to find it isn't | real. | dekhn wrote: | This is an incredibly important point. Medical research must be | taken seriously and I see many problems with the processes | being applied here. | | (for those who care- I'm a published ml biologist who works for | a pharma that develops human health products. Having worked in | this area for some time, I often see people who have no real | idea of how the medical establishment works, or how diagnostics | are marketed/sold/regulated. Overconfidence by naive | individuals can have massive negative outcomes. | plandis wrote: | If your decision making process is a negative result tells you | nothing and a positive result warrants immediate follow up, | what's the risk here? I'm assuming doctors recommending that | women get checked for breast cancer is the primary breast | cancer is tested and diagnosed which presumably wouldn't change | because someone make a website. | quasarj wrote: | Ahh yes, why would we want to give poor people a potential | route to improve their health? it would definitely be more | ethical to let them die. | 725686 wrote: | For an evolutionary perspective of cancer and possible new ways | to treat them, I recommend the new book "The cheating cell" by | Athena Aktipis. | light_hue_1 wrote: | As an AI/ML researcher who publishes in this area regularly, I | will be using this as a case study for AI ethics classes. That | this is allowed to go on is shocking. | | > In 2018, a programmer named "coolwulf" started a thread about a | website he had made. Users just need to upload their X-ray | images, then they can let AI to carry out their own fast | diagnosis of breast cancer disease. | | Literally the worst fears that we have as a community is that | people will recklessly apply ML to things like cancer screening | on open websites and cause countless deaths, bankruptcies, | needless procedures, etc. How many people went to this website, | uploaded images, were told were ok and didn't follow up? How many | were told they have cancer and insisted on procedures they didn't | need? | | The website is totally unaccountable. Totally unregulated. | Totally without any of the most basic ethical standards in | medicine. Without even the most basic human rights for patients. | This is frankly disgusting. | | In the US this would have been shut down by the FDA immediately. | | We should not be celebrating this unethical "science" that | doesn't meet even the most basic of scientific standards or | ethical standards. | | I can't believe this is getting upvoted here. | karolist wrote: | I share your sentiment, people are focusing on successes too | much but not scrutinise what potential outcomes false negatives | in software like this can have. | light_hue_1 wrote: | This is unimaginably worse than what Theranos did! | acidoverride wrote: | > a case study for AI ethics classes | | What is unethical about this citizen science project? What is | ethical about keeping it only for yourself, and not sharing it | with the world? | | You are saying you have the expertise to build a similar | product, but releasing it would mean the worst fear of your | community? | | > people will recklessly apply ML | | What are the indications that this is a reckless application of | ML? | | > How many people went to this website, uploaded images, were | told were ok and didn't follow up? | | Common sense dictates exactly zero. Their follow up was taking | _their_ images and getting an automated second opinion. Either | a doctor already deemed them OK, or a doctor deemed them not | OK, in which case, they would not rely on a second opinion, to | think they are suddenly OK. | | > How many were told they have cancer and insisted on | procedures they didn't need? | | Again, exactly zero. The app returns probabilities not binary | diagnostics. No hospital would do anti-cancer procedures on a | patient without cancer, even when they insist, because some | website, friend, or religious leader told them so. | | > The website is totally unaccountable. | | Good. Or make the good-faith open-source project accountable | and liable? That would simply mean shutting it down. No more | diagnostics help for low-expertise hospitals: not good at all. | | > Totally without any of the most basic ethical standards in | medicine. | | List a basic ethical standard in medicine which this project | runs afoul of. | | > basic human rights for patients | | What right is that? The right not to upload _your_ images to a | site of _your_ choosing? I thought human rights include self- | determination, and keeping possession of _your_ imaging to do | however _you_ see fit. | | > In the US this would have been shut down by the FDA | immediately. | | But is that a good, ethical thing? Or simply that red tape and | authority in US does not allow for such projects? | | > We should not be celebrating this unethical "science" that | doesn't meet even the most basic of scientific standards or | ethical standards. | | You should not talk about ethics or science, when you did not | do even a proper evaluation of the work of a fellow scientist. | | > I can't believe this is getting upvoted here. | | Awaiting your work on cancer research and ML. Post it here. If | devoid of ethical issues, and strongly scientific, it will also | be upvoted and celebrated. Or is your major contribution going | to be a snipe at someone who actually contributed? | [deleted] | endisneigh wrote: | Should the internet also be shut down because people get false | conclusions from WebMD, Reddit, Twitter, Google search results, | etc? | coolwulf wrote: | Thank you for your reply. On the site, it's cleared marked and | noted this is not for diagnosis. | | "This tool is only to provide you with the awareness of breast | mammogram, not for diagnosis." | analyte123 wrote: | The words "found malicious mass", disclaimer or not, could be | considered a diagnosis. You can probably say "anomaly", or | _maybe_ even "classified as malicious mass". With you having | connections in the US, it is probably worth talking to an | expert if you want to keep this online. | | Also, 50 GPUs seems like more than necessary! | markus92 wrote: | It is, you can easily do this one one GPU, but it will a | bit longer. Doubt it'll be prohibitively so. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | A disclaimer that it isn't for diagnosis isn't generally | useful when everything else says the tool does diagnosis. | markus92 wrote: | Unfortunately, it's just a matter of time before someone gets | severe complications for whatever outcome your program gets | wrong. You have a false negative? Big problem, you just gave | someone worse treatment options (if lucky) or led to someone | being diagnosed too late and potentially getting metastasized | breast cancer. Those bone metastases are quite painful, you | know. | | False positives are even worse, because they are far far far | more likely to happen in practice. Imagine your program | telling someone it has a malignant mass (VERY bad wording, | only the pathologist can say something is malignant). I speak | from experience that this WILL lead to the patient going to | the doctor, and the doctor, seeing these very strong words, | might want to take a biopsy to confirm the malignancy. These | are painful procedures that can and will go wrong, eventually | (complication rate is ~1%, which is not a whole lot on its | own, but is unacceptable on a known healthy population). If | lucky, the biopsy can be done stereotactical, but if unlucky | it'll have to be done MRI-guided. You just cost society a few | thousand dollars/euros/yuan. And that's if everything goes | right, worst case it'll be hospital admission due to | complications, like an infection. | | Your blog post says you are trying to fight cancer, which is | a noble cause. If the tool is not for diagnostical purposes, | it's not doing a whole lot in fighting cancer as it is just a | play thing then. At the moment, it's more like hindering | cancer by taking resources from people who need them and | giving them to people who don't need them. | | Source: researcher in AI for breast cancer | screening/diagnosis. | skybrian wrote: | Is there any possible way that a test that is not entirely | reliable can be used for screening? Like, couldn't they | have a radiologist look at the photo to confirm the result? | markus92 wrote: | Yeah you could do that and it's happening in practice. | Many countries implement double reading where two | radiologists look at it. In the USA, single reading + | computer-aided diagnosis is quite common using | commercial, FDA-approved software. | tasuki wrote: | Of course, this is going to harm some people. Is it | possible the number of people it helps is significantly | larger than the number of people it harms? If it were so, | would you not consider that a reasonable tradeoff? | | A slight digression: I find in certain countries (cough | cough US), everyone is free to give advice/opinion on | anything, except for medical/legal matters, which are | considered sacred and so no one is free to give any | advice/opinion on those. I saw a person scolded by HR for | literally saying "make sure you stay well hydrated". This | is madness! Medical professionals should _not_ have a | monopoly on advice concerning hydration. | dekhn wrote: | The proper response to being scolded by HR for saying | that is to ask what the person's username is, so you can | speak to their manager. | | Then, when you speak to the manager, ask them not to have | their report telling people not to do things that HR | doesn't have authority over (coworkers discussing health | topics like that are not within the scope of HR). | dekhn wrote: | You know, if people who teach ML classes at universities | point out to you that what you're doing is going to be taught | in classes as an example of "what not to do and how not to do | it", you should probably immediately stop what you are doing | and get opinions from experts in the field. | | I will repeat what others are say: this is irresponible due | to naivete and could be harmful to people. Please consult | with experts on how to proceed. | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | and this is why healthcare is the #1 source of bankruptcy in | the US. | | Some people believe that every single person must have | Mercedes-Benz type of care in the US. | | They cannot fathom that some of the plebs (do they even exist | for them?) may want to make their own independent healthcare | choices, and are willing to accept the risk ... (or can only | afford!) a Suzuki. | jseliger wrote: | _and this is why healthcare is the #1 source of bankruptcy in | the US._ | | May not be true: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post- | partisan/wp/2018/0... | | The regulatory burden on medical treatments is far too high, | however, and we should have the right to try: | https://fee.org/archive/topics/Right%20to%20Try | ska wrote: | It's an interesting subject, with a long history; I think many of | the biggest challenges are not technical. | | The first commercially available AI/ML approach to breast cancer | screening was available (US) in the late 90s. There have been | many iterations and some improvements since, none of which really | knock it out of the park but most clinical radiologists see the | value. Perhaps the more interesting question then is why are | people getting value out of uploading their own scans, i.e. why | does their standard care path not already include this? | coolwulf wrote: | The reason I made this project 100% free and available to the | general public is to help patients, especially in the remote | area who has limited access to experienced radiologists for | diagnosis, to at least get a second opinion on their mammogram. | And I think this has certain value and this is why I'm doing | this project. | | Hao | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Great project and really cool to see this. | | Question I have for you is that one of the biggest problems | with cancer diagnoses is false positives: "Yes, there is | something on your scan, we're not sure what it is, so we'll | biopsy it." Biopsy is not a 0-risk procedure, and it can | cause a lot of worry and pain, so it's not something to be | taken lightly. Also, there are many cases of "OK, it's | probably cancer, but the cure may be worse than the disease." | This is the classic problem with detecting prostate cancer at | an advanced age - it's very likely/probable something else | will kill you before the cancer does. | | How does your software deal with this issue? I'd be worried | if, as you put it, people in a remote area with limited | access to experienced radiologists, were given access to this | and it came back with "Fairly decent chance of cancer" - what | do they do then? | coolwulf wrote: | Great question. Definitely sensitivity / specificity | balance is a crucial topic in AI-assisted diagnosis. I have | to admit this model and website for mammography was done in | 2018 and might not be the leading solution out there. At | the moment, if I want to improve the results of my earlier | work, I will add additional stage of radiomics model to do | false positive reduction, and in the mean time lower the | threshold in the first model to increase sensitivity. By | doing this, combining the feature extractions of deep | learning and the past 20 years of knowledge in medical | imaging using Radiomics might give better performance in | terms of sensitivity / specificity. | | Hao | areoform wrote: | How can we help? Is there some way for us to contact you | regarding this? | dekhn wrote: | You're operating in a really serious area of medicine and | I encourage you to takes the comments about false | positives (and false negatives) more seriously. It's not | really just a matter of making adjustments to a model; it | has to be pervasive in the entire process of making | reproducible modeels that are used for making decisiojns | about humans. | ska wrote: | I think this comment is perhaps a bit uncharitable. | | Even if you have done everything you are supposed to do | in the process, at the end of the day you are looking at | ROC curves or equivalent and trying to understand | sensitivity vs. specificity trade offs, and often you | have some sort of (indirect) parameters than can move to | different points of that tradeoff. | | This is quite critical in deployment, if you are | screening you usually want something different than in | diagnosis; as alluded to elsewhere if you raise the work- | up rate too much you definitely risk killing more people | from biopsy complications than you help with higher | sensitivity (it's more complicated than that in practice) | dekhn wrote: | deploying ML medical diagnostics is like everything else | in ML: the ML part is 1% of a much larger "thing", which | involves business, legal, and many other concerns far | beyond the data analytics. | | Nothing abotu what I'm saying is uncharitable- in a | sense, it's charitable because I'm helping warn a person | who is going down a dangerous path to consult more with | experts in this field. | ska wrote: | The charitable response would have been to assume they | _do_ have some understanding the broader context, and | perhaps raise specific concerns or points of interest. | | What you did was assume that they were ignorant in | potentially dangerous ways, and assert they should do | something different. | | I don't think a reading of the comments/responses (at | least at your time of posting) really supported that | assumption, especially considering the limitations of the | medium. Hence my reply to you, while also detailing the | trade offs a tiny bit. | dekhn wrote: | I read the entire article and I didn't see anything in | there that would convince me this author is anything | other than an amateur programmer (I can't parse the | section about bruker- is the "amateur programmer" also a | director at Bruker who ddevelops medical devices full- | time"?). | | Please be assured that I put a fair amount of thought | into this - for example, I used to do due diligence for a | VC firm evaluating proposals like this all the time and | we had to reject most of them because the founders didn't | understand the basic rules of deploying medical | technology in highly regulated environments like the US. | | Based on my interactions with the author in the various | parts this post, I continue to conclude this individual | is lacking core knowledge and wisdom required to execute | a project like this successfully at scale. | ska wrote: | The article was pretty fluffy, but it was about them not | by them. If article was accurate about the role at | Siemens they have for certain been exposed to RA/QA work | and know what a DHF is, etc. | | Anyway and least at they time you posted (since then | there were more interaction) I didn't find the same | information nearly enough to dismiss their competence out | of hand. | dekhn wrote: | I went back and dwetermined that the article was wrong. | He wasn't a "director" at Bruker, he was a "detector | imaging scientist". There's nothing about Siemens. | | What I didn't totally grasp from the article is this is a | company https://www.reddit.com/r/MedicalPhysics/comments/ | t5u2c9/intr... | | So this isn't an amateur programmer, it's a person who | got a phd in nuclear engineering and radiological | sciences, was a scientist at bruker, has some experience | with health systems, and then became a serial entrepeneur | with a small company that has some funding. BTW, people | who have the job title "Director" are normally fairly | senior (old), as well. | coolwulf wrote: | The website is cleared marked as a breast health | awareness tool and not for diagnosis. We are not doing | any decision making for humans. However I would like to | point out there are quite some FDA approved mammo AI | products in the market at the moment. | dekhn wrote: | So, you think if you put up a website, people won't use | it for diagnosis anyway? | | yes, I know mammo AI products are on the market- those | that were approved followed a collection of regulations | that I think you are not. | endisneigh wrote: | Even if people use it for diagnosis, so what? Take the | info and if it's positive to confirm with doctor, if it's | negative but you have reservations go see doctor. | | It doesn't really change anything. | dekhn wrote: | so you're saying the test is worthless in terms of | actionability? Why woudl you want to take it then? | endisneigh wrote: | It's not that it's worthless, it's simply another data | point to give to a professional. | billiam wrote: | You will save even more lives if you over-communicate | about the need to use your awareness tools (with better | false positive reduction) to drive more effective | diagnosis. | [deleted] | ska wrote: | Inconsistent care is a really good point. I wasn't trying to | be negative - hope it didn't come across that way. I was | hoping to point out that systemic issues in health care | management, at least in a lot of countries, seems to be more | of a problem that tech for things like this. | | Out of curiosity, how are you handling the data access and | labelling issues here? I suspect that's the key issue that | has limited the performance of the commercial offerings | (hardly limited to this problem or this space). | | OTOH in terms of real impact, properly leveraging a more | modestly successful algorithm will probably help more people | than getting a few more %. With the (strong) caveat that in a | space like this you really have to look at work-up rate and | balance risks. | monkeydust wrote: | There is history of breast cancer in my family and anything | that can be done to improve outcomes has to be highly | commended. I did however have the same question and this | | > to at least get a second opinion on their mammogram. | | for me makes a lot of sense, even in developed countries | where you get a result but want extra assurances. | | It would be interesting to know (assuming you have the data, | even anecdotally) if the second opinions using this | overturned professional ones and from those how many were | corrected an original false negative mistake. | ska wrote: | Not speaking for coolwulf obviously but I can perhaps shed | some light. | | Screening breast mammo has an occurrence rate problme. | Something like less than 10 in 1000 studies will require | further review; this means in practice as a radiologist you | look at a lot of negative films before seeing a TP. It also | means a typical read is done _fast_. Seconds-to-small | minutes. | | This results in a couple of things. Reader variability | based on experience/throughput, and false negatives. There | were some double reader studies that caught something like | 15% (going from memory here) of FN - but nobody can affort | to have two radiologists read everything. | | So the profession is already conceptually used to the idea | of using an algorithm as a "second read" and reconsidering. | Typically this won't "overturn" anything here but rather | say 'hey have another look', but the decision to proceed or | not is still the clinicians. Having a positive from the | algorithm makes them review carefully, but you have to | watch the FP rate here or nobody would get anything else | done. | | I have heard of health systems using algorithms as a first | pass too (i.e. radiologist only see films that have had a | postive in a tuned-to-be-senstive version), but that has | it's own set of issues. | Hitton wrote: | Is this machine translated? Some parts don't make much sense. | coolwulf wrote: | Recently a Chinese media interviewed me and I talked about a few | side projects I have done in the past. I talked about the | Neuralrad Mammo Screening project and Neuralrad multiple brain | mets SRS platform. More awareness on radiation therapy to the | general public will greatly help the community and we believe | Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) will eventually replace majority | of the whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in the next five | years. | | Here is the link to the original article: | https://www.toutiao.com/article/7094940100450107935/ | abfan1127 wrote: | Google Translate link - https://www-toutiao- | com.translate.goog/article/7094940100450... | gregsadetsky wrote: | Thanks -- and here's the site as well -- | http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/upload | Simon_O_Rourke wrote: | Thank you for all you've done for people, it's amazing and | inspiring! | rob_c wrote: | Fantastic work dude. On behalf of anyone who might one day | benefit thanks and congrats. | jabrams2003 wrote: | What's the best way to contact you? I've been fighting brain | cancer for 7 years and work closely with a group of neuro- | oncologists, researchers, non-profits, and investors in the | space. | | I'd love to chat. | throwaway122385 wrote: | coolwulf wrote: | Feel free to send me emails: coolwulf@gmail.com | koprulusector wrote: | > Recently a Chinese media interviewed me and I talked about a | few side projects I have done in the past. | | I apologize if this has been asked and answered before, but do | you speak Mandarin, or was the interview in English? | | Asking out of curiosity if it's the former, and if so, how | difficult was it to learn whilst also working on this and other | things? And are there any resources or tips you might share | that you found helpful? | qzw wrote: | According to the article, Coolwulf went to Nanjing University | for undergrad, so pretty safe to assume he would do an | interview with Chinese media in Mandarin. And since he likely | grew up in China, it was probably very easy for him to learn | Mandarin indeed! | jacquesm wrote: | Super effort. I understand your reluctance to accept funding | but if you ever change your mind on that be sure to publish it | here on HN. If giving you more tools means more progress in | this domain without the usual red tape then I'm all for giving | you as much of a push as possible. | iaw wrote: | You're clearly well accomplished in multiple areas. How do | approach learning something new? | hehepran wrote: | Sir, you are super cool. | Billsen wrote: | Nice job! | onetimeusename wrote: | Where did you learn to program on distributed Nvidia GPUs? The | article implied you were self taught and learning to do this is | quite challenging for various reasons. | | Not least, Nvidia's documentation is not the best resource to | learn from. This seems like quite a lot of work to understand | ML and write custom CUDA code to get this to work. Do you have | any insight about how you taught yourself these things and what | tools you use? | MaximumYComb wrote: | I'm not your OP but I learnt all these things at univeristy | during my BCompSci. Understanding ML algorithms came down to | a lot of math / statistics units. I learnt about parallel | computing during a dedicated unit called "Distributed and | Parallel Computing" | jacquesm wrote: | Not the OP but I taught myself in a couple of weeks picking | apart some of the sample CUDA code and reading some of the | (excellent) pdfs on the architecture of the Nvidia range. At | the time the GTX285 was hot stuff, the same code runs | unchanged on a 1080ti and I would expect it to continue to | work on even more modern incarnations. CUDA is pretty good as | a platform to build on if you understand the basic idea | behind the engine. And ML on CUDA vs ML in C or some other | language is typically a matter of shuttling the data and the | results back and forth between main memory and the card as | well as implementing the most time consuming portions of the | algorithm you are using in a custom kernel, you can usually | get 50% or so of the theoretical maximum speed with | relatively little effort. Getting to full speed is going to | be a lot harder, but then you could of course also add | another card (or another three) get get an instant boost. | | Usually you would - nowadays at least - use someone else's | optimized kernel + ML library but if you wanted to roll your | own that's doable. | sylware wrote: | javascript only link. Any compatible link with noscript/basic | (x)html browsers? | jjeaff wrote: | And I would like the content sent to me in Morse code via | telegraph. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Unless it's more expensive than existing treatments the medical | industry will close the circles around you excluding you. | | That's why not one startup has hacked healthcare in America, | not one. No breakaway successes making pharma cheaper. Like | those incubators in Bangladesh, for premature babies not | startups that is, those did OK. Some pill startups yes, but | again that's an expensivification of medicine. If you can make | medicine more expensive, they welcome you in! | | Jim Clark tried this, he was on a roll after Silicon Graphics | and Netscape. Huge roll about as strong as Elon Musk as a | serial entrepreneur. Then he targeted healthcare and couldn't | do shit, just couldn't get anything to happen. He literally | talked about getting "rid of all the assholes" by which he | meant insurance and doctors and hospitals and middlemen and | pharma and all the other "assholes" of that nature in his own | words, but leave "only one asshole in the middle--us | [paraphrased]." It's in a book. That book also talks about guys | going on airplanes and chasing goats off cliffs, saying "Some | people do this." | | Well the real structure of medicine isn't designed around the | human body, it's designed around cornering the market. Market | dominance. So of course it has this immune system against cost | reduction and efficiencies--efficiencies especially--and you do | know it lobbies, don't you? And can bribe the FDA like the | Sacklers did? Or lobby the FDA, and then bribe underneath so | when people see favoritism they think it's the over-the-counter | placebo causing a placebo effect without suspecting an | additional more potent under-the-table dosage of money. In case | the administration has built up a tolerance to the over-the- | counter stuff. | quickthrower2 wrote: | What about the NHS in the UK? They should be more aligned to | wanting cheaper cancer diagnosis and also anything to help | people. | | If America has dysfunctional healthcare there is still the | rest of the world. Which might be good for Americans | eventually as the tech will come across one way or another. | londons_explore wrote: | I believe it's too small a market. | | Modern treatments are hugely expensive to develop, and they | also tend to be very specific (ie. only 1 in 5,000 people | might get the exact right kind of brain tumour for your | treatment to be an option). | | With only about 1 million all-cause deaths per year in the | UK, that means your treatment for a specific terminal brain | tumour might only have 200 patients per year. | | The 'we just saved 4 hours of clinician time by using fancy | AI' just isn't worth it if it only saves 800 hours of | clinician time per year, yet costs millions to develop. | | The fix is to roll this out somewhere with more patients | (eg. China) and where trials are cheaper (ie. China). | anamax wrote: | > If America has dysfunctional healthcare there is still | the rest of the world. Which might be good for Americans | eventually as the tech will come across one way or another. | | Which raises the question - why does the vast majority of | healthcare tech development come from the US? (I included | "development" to get around the out-sourcing of testing to | China.) | danielheath wrote: | It's hard to understand how much more available capital | is in the states. Getting 100 million together is | drastically easier there than anywhere else. | | Similar to silicon valley's tech scene, you get migration | of people who want to work at a level where that sort of | capital is required. | idiotsecant wrote: | >That's why not one startup has hacked healthcare in America, | not one. | | This post makes a lot of points, but in general I think they | boil down to the above statement : the belief that large, | complex systems are just run by stupid and/or malicious | people and that a sufficiently clever 'hack' will fix all the | problems. I think that is an attitude that is common on HN, | but wrong. | | Most big problems are not technology problems, they are | People problems with a capital P. Technology problems can be | fixed with 'one simple hack they don't want you to know | about!!!' People problems are complex and messy and cause and | effect can be intermingled vertically and horizontally with | other seemingly unrelated factors as well as temporally with | things that don't even exist yet or used to exist but don't | anymore! | | The way we fix these messy, complex People problems is by | respecting that they are real problems, that the people | acting on those systems are (mostly) reasonable people just | doing what reasonable people do, and slogging through | solutions a day at a time with the oldest technology around - | political power. These problems resolve if you can get enough | people to agree they need solved. | throwaway122385 wrote: | lhl wrote: | While the US health care system as a whole is mess, I don't | think it's intractable if you can attack it from the right | directions. GoodRX did with pharmaceuticals, and Mark Cuban | seems to be doing a good job with CostPlus Drugs. (Valisure | is also pretty interesting, doing in-house validation of | generics). | | Marty Makary wrote a book a couple years back, The Price We | Pay on the wicked knot of a problem that is US health care. | For those mildly interested, there was a Peter Attia Podcast | inteview a while back that covers the gist of it: | https://peterattiamd.com/martymakary/ | | For those that want to get some color from some of the | biggest problems from a clinician/practioner's perpective, I | found some of these podcast episodes to be pretty great/eye | opening: https://zdoggmd.com/podcasts/ | rg111 wrote: | Hi. Some great projects. What's more commendable is your | dedication towards your projects and seeing them through to | end- to the point that they are actually useful. This is what I | truly admire. | | I have a question for you. What is the tech stack that you use? | | And if it is not too much: What resources did you use to learn | Deep Learning? | dclowd9901 wrote: | As a "professional" programmer, I'm humbled by your | accomplishments. I really must find ways to contribute more to | the world. It seems there's a lot of opportunities in AI to do | it. | llaolleh wrote: | Your story was inspirational. It's really cool to run this | project to help others without expecting any payment. | ska wrote: | WBRT is pretty brutal. Am I right in thinking you are focusing | on multiple site treatment/palliative treatment of metastatic | presentations? High site count also or sticking to say < 5? | coolwulf wrote: | Exactly, I'm working on a workflow platform for multiple | brain metastasis stereotactic radiosurgery. This will greatly | benefit patients with more than 5 BMs. | samstave wrote: | ELI5, please. | ska wrote: | Metastatic disease is when a cancer spreads to multiple | locations. This can make it | difficult/impossible/impractical to treat effectively, | especially surgically. | | Whole brain radiotherapy works by killing everything a | little bit in the hopes that the tumors die first (e.g. | like chemo). There are good reasonswhy this tends to | mostly-sort-of be true, but getting the balance right is | hard and too much dose will definitely cause other | problems. | | SRS is a way of targeting radiation directly to locations | to kill cells, with less effective dose (hence damage) to | other parts of the brain. | | It's all pretty harsh stuff, and you can die from the | necrotic tissue caused by it, also. | | Often with this kind of disease you know you aren't going | to cure someone, but you can get rid of symptoms and make | people more comfortable (palliative care). | ska wrote: | Cool stuff! I've done some work in adjacent areas - there | are huge challenges (not only technical) but great to feel | you are making an impact. | pen2l wrote: | Oh, it's you! | | What a beacon of light and inspiration you are. Thanks for your | work. | | That said, I welcome you to publish your work so it can become | even better after a formalized peer-review process. | coolwulf wrote: | For the multiple brain mets SRS project, we will be | presenting at this year's AAPM annual meeting. | FpUser wrote: | I am not a religious man at all but God Bless you. You are an | amazing human being and a source of inspiration. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> Furthermore, the accuracy of tumor identification has reached | 90%. | | How is this accuracy calculated? Further in the article it is | noted that there is no patient data saved by the project: | | >> He said that he's not sure actually how many people have used | it because the data is not saved on the server due to patient | privacy concerns. But during that time, he received a lot of | thank-you emails from patients, many of them from China. | | Considering user privacy is laudable in my opinion, but I'm still | curious to know how accuracy is known. | Iv wrote: | Probably based on a test set from the original dataset. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | The expression "has reached" makes it sound more like an | extrinsinc evaluation process has taken place (i.e. not on a | test set). | ghoomketu wrote: | Reading this article only makes me realise how crypto industry | has crippled the progress independent researchers like this would | badly need gpus for AI. | | How many really useful, cool and meaningful projects are stuck | because such authors can't find or afford gpus - as they are | being used to calculate meaningless hashes instead :/ | westcort wrote: | My key takeaways: | | * The free AI breast cancer detection website took coolwulf about | three months of spare time, sometime he had to sleep in his | office to get things done, before the site finally went live in | 2018 | | * The website also gained a lot of attention from the industry, | during which many domestic and foreign medical institutions, such | as Fudan University Hospital, expressed their gratitude to him by | email and were willing to provide financial and technical support | | * Afterwards, he and Weiguo Lu, now a tenured professor at | University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, founded two | software companies targeting the radiotherapy and started working | on product development for cancer radiotherapy and artificial | intelligence technologies | | * But in 2022, he returned with an even more important "brain | cancer project" | | * coolwulf (Hao Jiang) (right) He told us that his parents are | not medical professionals, and his interest in programming was | fostered from a young age | | * A reliable AI for tumor detection can enable a large number of | patients who cannot seek adequate medical diagnosis in time to | know the condition earlier or provide a secondary opinion | | * He said that he's not sure actually how many people have used | it because the data is not saved on the server due to patient | privacy concerns | | Link to the technology: http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/ | dekhn wrote: | that's an unadorned http link. Really? | ramraj07 wrote: | > A reliable AI for tumor detection can enable a large number | of patients who cannot seek adequate medical diagnosis in time | to know the condition earlier or provide a secondary opinion | | Citation Required? | oversocialized wrote: | green-salt wrote: | Amazing work. I'm glad this is going to help so many people. | latchkey wrote: | ETH will soon move from PoW to PoS (let's not debate the timeline | or if it is a good idea). This will put about 32 million GPUs | worth of compute and millions of CPUs searching for something | else to do (or just flood the market with used equipment). | | I have been searching, for years, for alternative workloads for | these GPUs beyond just PoW mining and password cracking. Many of | them are on systems with tiny cpus, little memory, little disk, | little networking so the options are heavily limited. | AI/ML/Rendering/Gaming actually make bad use cases. | | If anyone has thoughts on this, I'd appreciate hearing them. Let | it all die is certainly an option, but it also seems just as | wasteful as keeping it going. Maybe we can find a better use | case, like somehow curing cancer... | redisman wrote: | Why isn't there a folding coin? Productive mining and you | reward the new protein folds or whatever | bufferoverflow wrote: | There's Folding Coin (FLDC) | | https://foldingcoin.net/ | | But it never took off. | fancyfredbot wrote: | Because folding is too hard to verify. For a Blockchain to | work it needs to be very easy to prove that the miner has | actually done the work. With a folding problem it's very hard | to prove the answer a miner gives is actually a solution to | the problem rather than a quick guess. It's a shame! | quickthrower2 wrote: | Just make it centralized (like most cryptocurrency | effectively is anyway). You would still need some checks | and balances sure. | | Make a token. Altruists buy the token to fund the "miners". | They may also make a profit but they buy knowing most | likely they wont and it is for a good cause. | latchkey wrote: | That is what gridcoin is. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | What about federated learning to deal with the little memory | issue? | VHRanger wrote: | Proof of Stake has been 6-18months away for 5 years now. | | As far as I'm concerned it'll release along with Star Citizen | dekhn wrote: | folding@home has been doing this for 20+ years. They already | did all the smart research and tech development. Just use that | until somebody comes up with a workable DrugDiscoveryAtHome or | CureCancerAtHome. | latchkey wrote: | This is a very dismissive answer which seems odd coming from | someone with a lot of karma. Running GPUs at scale isn't easy | or cheap. | | There is no incentive to run this other than good feelings. | Unfortunately, that isn't enough in the business world to | spend millions on cap/opx. | | What I'm looking for is incentivized options. Even better if | they come from a web3 situation where a business can operate | without having actual customers. | | "Mining", but with not such "wasteful" work. | dekhn wrote: | only good feelings? f@H has made fundamental contributions | to our understanding of biophysics of folding proteins! | latchkey wrote: | Sorry, it was just a way to say "not financially | incentivized". | passivate wrote: | I am aware of domain applications from F@H, but not core | science work. What are those fundamental contributions? | dekhn wrote: | We conclusively demonstrated that kinetic models of | folding are critical to do better drug discovery against | GPCRs and other target classes. | | Or did you mean something more fundamental, like "the | biophysics of protein folding is primarily determined by | entropic-driven hydrophobic collapse, not enthalpic | contributions from hydrogen bonding?" | quickthrower2 wrote: | The dark side is you need a ponzi scheme to fund it. When | that ponzi collapses the work stops. Good feelings are | better IMO! | latchkey wrote: | It is odd that you think of crypto as a ponzi while | promoting a referral network in your HN profile. | dekhn wrote: | yeah, everybody knows crypto is a _pyramid_ scheme, ponzi | schemes are specifically about a type of coupon fraud. | bryans wrote: | It's ironic to be declaring the GP as dismissive while | you're flippantly dismissing the work of everyone involved | with F@H. You're conveniently ignoring the incentive of | expanding our understanding of biology, which has very real | applications and results[1] that benefit the entire world | for the rest of human existence, instead of benefiting a | single participant in the short term. | | [1] https://www.hpcwire.com/2020/10/14/how-foldinghome- | identifie... | latchkey wrote: | What? I'm not dismissing their work. | | I'm just saying there is no direct financial incentive | for 32 million GPUs to move over to it. If there was, | they'd be on that instead of ETH. | bryans wrote: | You literally said "no incentive [...] other than good | feelings." Regardless, even adding the words "direct | financial" is still incorrect. For one of many examples, | insurance companies investing in F@H infrastructure would | be beneficiaries, albeit via savings and not revenue. | latchkey wrote: | I literally clarified my statement since you came to an | incorrect conclusion. | | "direct financial" is correct when you're giving examples | that are not direct. | bryans wrote: | You're moving the goal posts, on top of changing the | definition of "direct" to fit your false narrative. First | you claim there was no incentive at all, then there was | no "direct" incentive, and now direct apparently means | "immediate" instead of linear. | | If a company invests in research specifically because the | fruits of that research will reduce expenses, that is | direct financial benefit. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Oh you know what an alternative use is? Oaths. Works with old | ASICs as well...well I think. So you take a document, like this | comment, you append a nonce (you'll see) and you hash it until | you get a lot of zeroes in the front. Same as bitcoin, but | you're not hashing the bitcoin protocol. Then, you know the | document has been sworn, as a cryptographic oath, to that | extent. Nonce: 38943 | latchkey wrote: | This is effectively timestamp.com | | There is also very little incentive structure. | daniel-cussen wrote: | So then go to https://geraintluff.github.io/sha256/ | | > oath = "Oh you know what an alternative use is? Oaths. | Works with old ASICs as well...well I think. So you take a | document, like this comment, you append a nonce (you'll see) | and you hash it until you get a lot of zeroes in the front. | Same as bitcoin, but you're not hashing the bitcoin protocol. | Then, you know the document has been sworn, as a | cryptographic oath, to that extent. Nonce: 38943" | | > sha256(oath) 00009ea9ab415b7f60cd43571c159d1bf1e01de4bae6a7 | 06ec9053ceb94d385c | | Note the leading 0's. That's no timestamp, that's an oath. | | In reply to the sibling comment: no. I like timestamp.com, | and in fact I could have never found out about it other than | by talking about the oath concept, but this is not just | including it in the blockchain. It's proving its value to the | author to bother doing the work of getting a good nonce for | it. Literally putting my money where my mouth is. And | swearing an oath to that extent, I could cryptographically | swear it more, with more work, or use a smaller less | impressive nonce if I'm not as sure. | | And incentives? There is an incentive for me. At the same | time it is effectively burning money, swearing by burning | money. Took like seven seconds of compute, too. I had to wait | human time for that. It's collateral, it's an oath. And it's | an impediment to forgery, and in addition, an impediment to | eg news sites telling different people different things. With | oaths they have to tell everybody the same thing. | ephbit wrote: | Could you kindly point me/others to some info about this | oath concept? | | I mostly get pointed to Oauth stuff when searching for | "oath sha256 nonce". | daniel-cussen wrote: | There's nothing out there beyond what you've read in my | two comments above yours. | | Well I suppose I can still point you to it: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31451260 | | You know what? I'll make a post about it and link it | here. | netsharc wrote: | Crypto is <valley-girl>literally</valley-girl> stopping us from | finding the cure for cancer! | mwt wrote: | Folding@home would love to take a swing at a sliver of that | compute | jseliger wrote: | It's peculiar to me that Folding@home never managed to get | GPUs working for MacOS, given the platform's popularity: | https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=32895 | | As a consequence, it seems not worth installing on MacOS: | https://stats.foldingathome.org/os | dekhn wrote: | It's not worth implementing for MacOS because it woulnd't | increase the overall folding rate very much given the | relative weakness of the Mac GPUs compared to the existing | f@h fleet. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > ETH will soon move from PoW to PoS (let's not debate the | timeline or if it is a good idea). This will put about 32 | million GPUs worth of compute and millions of CPUs searching | for something else to do (or just flood the market with used | equipment). | | Crypto markets crashing together could do this, but ETH's | switch isn't going to do much for old cards. | | Checking https://whattomine.com/ shows that ETH mining isn't | even in the top 5 most profitable things to mine with a 1080Ti | right now. The miners looking to squeeze every bit of | profitability out of old hardware switched away from ETH a long | time ago. | RealityVoid wrote: | I hear people say this, but I am absolutely certain their | assumptions are wrong. | | 1) The sum total of rewards is fixed for POW 2) Introducing | extra hashing power will increase the difficulties of these | mining ops up to the profitability equilibrium point. | | After the overall "free" hashing power increases to a point, | GPU's will start flooding the market at dumping prices. | | It will be incredibly rad! | latchkey wrote: | Wrong. Why? | | 1) The cards have already paid for themselves. They are 100% | ROI positive and even at the current low amounts very | profitable. Regardless of what W2M says, ETH is still the top | most profitable coin. Large miners don't sell immediately, | they wait for the market to go up or the option against their | ETH holdings. | | 2) ETH doesn't require latest hardware because the algo is | memory hard, which means that the bottle neck is in the | memory controller, not in the speed of the GPU chip itself. | https://www.vijaypradeep.com/blog/2017-04-28-ethereums- | memor... | | 3) The actual consumable is electricity price, which really | hasn't changed much in the last few years for large miners | who have contracts. | zamadatix wrote: | There are plenty of good uses, projects like BOINC have been | using GPUs for good for over a decade. The problem is the | incentive system disappears, it's a lot easier to get people to | run 32 million GPUs when it makes them money instead of costs | them money. | latchkey wrote: | Well, exactly. It has to be incentivized. | whoisterencelee wrote: | Please please check gridcoin.world | latchkey wrote: | This seems like an incentivized BOINC built on top of an | inflationary shitcoin. There is no utility in the coin | itself and that is reflected in its price history. | | What we need is something that has utility... like run | BOINC, earn tokens that can be used in the real world for | something other than just dumping on the market. | notfed wrote: | What does "90% accuracy" mean? Is this before or after applying | Bayes' theorem? | 1-6 wrote: | Goes to show that you don't need to be a long time programmer to | have impact in most areas of society. | | Why is Python so good? It democratizes by lowering the bar to | coding. | redeyedtreefrog wrote: | In the UK the NHS don't do screening for breast cancer for under | 50s because it's believed that it would do more harm than good by | leading to unnecessary treatment for cancers that would never | have actually caused any harm, and even where no treatment is | carried out it causes great distress. Though there are arguments | that the age cut off is too high, and should be set at 40. | | The above is with regard to a well-funded and regulated screening | program that presumably has much better precision/recall than | this website. I wonder what the cut off age is for this website | before the diagnoses cause more harm than good? 60? 70? | | This is getting lots of upvotes because it's confirmation bias | for the large segment of HN readers who believe that problems | would easily be solved by a small number of brilliant | technologists, if only it weren't for governments and big | organisations with all their rules and regulations. | laingc wrote: | A lot of people, including myself, don't believe that central | health authorities have the right to make that call. | | Moreover, I personally don't have confidence in their ability | to make those kinds of decisions, and I believe the abysmal | performance of the NHS supports my view. | Gatsky wrote: | The NHS has finite resources. They have to decide if | implementing a screening program is worthwhile or not, versus | spending the money elsewhere. You can still go to your doctor | and get a mammogram (or even a more useful test) if you have | other reasons why this might be justified in your situation. | They aren't 'banning' mammograms for young women. | KennyBlanken wrote: | It's not just a matter of finite resources. | | Any sort of treatment is invasive. Almost all form of | medical treatment has side effects and risks. | | Finding out you have "cancer" is traumatic and extremely | emotional, though breast cancer is one of the most | survivable (in part because, well, everyone loves boobs. | Prostate cancer, on the other hand...) | | Putting these tools in the hands of medical professionals | is one thing. Putting them in the hands of the general | public is beyond irresponsible. | | People physically assaulted doctors and nurses for not | being given ivermectin; imagine how insufferable people | will get when some website examined their mammogram and | said they have cancer. | ramraj07 wrote: | I share your disdain for a central authority in making these | judgement calls, but I have even less confidence in the | majority of people who think they can solve everything with | AI. Signed, a data scientist with a PhD in biomedical | engineering. | Waterluvian wrote: | I think central authorities absolutely must make that call. | Who else is going to decide how to dole out a scarce social | resource? Americanizing healthcare is obviously not a good | choice given how much worse it does overall by basically | every measure (unless you're rich and don't give a toss about | other people). | | I certainly agree that central authorities can be better. But | that's kind of a truism. | | What alternative options do you have in mind? Admittedly I'm | short on alternative ideas. | webmobdev wrote: | Thanks for the different perspective. What did you mean by | "unnecessary treatment" though? If you have cancer, doesn't it | need to be treated? Doesn't cancer anywhere always cause harm | to the body? | dekhn wrote: | For many detectable tumors, the best answer is "wait and | see", not "immediately remove". There are many reasons for | this- surgery itself is risky, the tumor itself might not | ever become harmful. | | See for example https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology | /fullarticle/27... for some more context. | latortuga wrote: | Breast cancer for example is diagnosed by increasing levels | of invasiveness. First a mammogram, then possibly a 3D | mammogram, then an ultrasound, then a biopsy. There are | possibilities for false positives all along this path and | increasing levels of possible complications when performing | procedures. If a false positive gets to a biopsy and you get | an infection from it, you would not have ever gotten that | infection if they didn't start testing you so young. False | positives are _very_ common with breast cancer screening. | markdown wrote: | Not to mention the fact that getting a biopsy can cause the | cancer to spread all over the body where it might never | have grown beyond its original position had it been left | untouched. | gregsadetsky wrote: | 1) I just downloaded the "The Mammographic Image Analysis Society | database of digital mammograms" [0] and ran it against the tool | [1] image by image. Results below, code here [2]: | true_pos 36 true_neg 207 false_pos 63 false_neg | 16 total 322 | | 2) How is it true when the site [1] says "We will not store your | data on our server. Please don't worry about any privacy issues." | when you can find all analyzed mammograms under the "static" | directory? | | http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/static/mamo.jpg | | http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/static/mammo.jpg | | (trying file names at random) | | [0] https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/250394 | | [1] http://mammo.neuralrad.com:5300/upload | | [2] https://github.com/gregsadetsky/mias-check | coolwulf wrote: | Thank you for your efforts for validation and I appreciate | that. There is a script running in the background to auto clean | the files in static folder every day. | dekhn wrote: | You just admitted you _do_ store images. | | Also, you're serving up on http. Don't do that. | [deleted] | bitshaker wrote: | This is impressive. Wonderful work to OP. | | I'm currently working with Digistain (S21) and we're using AI to | predict breast (and eventually other) cancer recurrence. | | The tests are performed using infrared spectroscopy to measure | protein synthesis and then fed into AI in order to make proper | measurements and predictions. | | We've shown we're able to predict better than any other known | method and are beginning our partnership and rollout to many | hospitals around the world. | ArtixFox wrote: | did they win? | transfire wrote: | Sadly, this would be illegal in the USA and get shut down pretty | quickly. | giantg2 wrote: | More like a patent holder would usurp all the work someone else | did and make a fortune off of it after taking 5 years to get | through the red tape. | markus92 wrote: | Na, this is all well-known work. This field is seriously big, | lots of publications on it dating back to the early '90s. | renewiltord wrote: | unlessI'm wrong, he's in Michigan. | charia wrote: | OP is probably talking about the legality of American | hospitals using this software in an official capacity like | some Chinese hospitals seem to be doing. | | I'm completely unfamiliar, but it wouldn't surprise me if for | diagnosing? software like this to be used in an official | medical capacity in America it would need to go through some | sort of particular vetting process because if it isn't it | might leave hospitals who use it open to lawsuits. | caycep wrote: | that would be a potential YC idea. A company that enables | smaller groups to do clinical research w/o needing an army | of people to wade through the regulatory red tape. That | also isn't in and of itself a giant predatory CRO type | organization. | dekhn wrote: | that's literally what pharma is now- companies that exist | to help smaller groups get their research through the | clinical and approval process. It would be hard to buidl | that level of expertise in a smaller company. | codingdave wrote: | What exactly is illegal about this? If you are thinking HIPAA | laws, they don't apply when you are sharing your own medical | information/images. | dekhn wrote: | This is a regulated industry. If you don't jump through the | necessary hoops, the US government _will_ shut you down and | there are many laws on the books they can use for this. There | are many laws beyond HIPAA (which exists to make it easier to | share data, not harder) which apply. | codingdave wrote: | We may be talking about different things - I was referring | to writing the software and having people upload their own | data to it. You guys must be referring to more formal usage | in the healthcare industry. | dekhn wrote: | who operates the servers for the software? Each | individual at home is going to have a machine that does | inference on their own images? | Flankk wrote: | The FDA may or may not attempt to classify it as a medical | device and then shut it down. Otherwise legal if it includes a | disclaimer. | pentium wrote: | way cool, no need to label yourself amateur, software, hardware, | radiology, and real impact. Hats off to you. | [deleted] | somethoughts wrote: | Admittedly I just skimmed the article but I feel like the title | should be more - "This "amateur" medical...". His primary | expertise is more physics/CS/programmer related than it is human | biology/medicine. | jonplackett wrote: | Is 90% correct rate considered good enough for this kind of use? | | Seems like 1/10 wrong would be bad, how does that compare with a | doctor doing it? | latortuga wrote: | According to the American Cancer Society | | > About half of the women getting annual mammograms over a | 10-year period will have a false-positive finding at some | point. | OJFord wrote: | 'Amateur' oughtn't be scare-quoted because it's not a slur, many | of the finest programmers were amateurs for many years before | they were old enough to be given a job in the profession. | ant6n wrote: | If u used to be a paid software programmer and got a different | job, but continued doing programming side projects without pay, | are u an amateur or not? | NHQ wrote: | It literally means "for the love". | Wohlf wrote: | Yes, but you'd also be a former professional. Amateur also | isn't meant to be a negative term, it just means you do it as | a hobby rather than as a profession. | jxramos wrote: | I had an art teacher affectionately remind me the etymology for | amateur | | > borrowed from French, going back to Middle French, "one who | loves, lover," borrowed from Latin amator "lover, enthusiastic | admirer, devotee," from amare "to have affection for, love, be | in love, make love to" (of uncertain origin) + -tor-, -tor, | agent suffix https://www.merriam- | webster.com/dictionary/amateur#etymology... | | changes the feeling of it all when you get that context, | someone who loves a subject pretty much--no qualifications | skill wise or regarding depth but they love it and should | presumably take things seriously to some degree as any lover | would. | gist wrote: | Using 'amateur' (quoted or not) is click bait. It's an | embellishment to the rest of the headline. For that matter even | though it's true the graphics cards are as well. Only thing | that could have made it more click bait would be to also put in | AI in the headline. | OJFord wrote: | True, rather like age (or any discrimination category | actually) is often used to make something sound more of an | achievement, even though it's actually just about right place | right time, experience (which you could happen to have at | almost any age), etc. | vmception wrote: | > In short, it is to let the AI help you "look at the film", and | the accuracy rate is almost comparable to professional doctors, | and it is completely free. | | In the US, the issue is getting the Xray ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-20 23:00 UTC)