Search Immortality Topics:

Page 3«..2345..1020..»


Category Archives: Machine Learning

Predicting The Price Of Used Cars Using Machine Learning – Medium

Introduction

Background

Leveraging Machine Learning

Methodology

Data Collection and Preprocessing

Model selection

Algorithmic Framework

Model Training

Feature Importance and Analysis

Model evaluation

Continuous learning and Adaptation

Conclusion

The Automotive Market has been dynamically increasing all over the World, therefore making it difficult to estimate the value of a used car. Due to the increase and rise of new technologies, people have found it difficult to use traditional methods, therefore relying on todays technology due to some of the factors influencing the cars worth. This article will guide us on how to predict the price of a used car using todays technology, that is machine learning. We are going to see how these algorithms have led to cheap means of predicting a cars worth. Our model will provide a more precise and adaptable solution for determining the accurate price of used cars by using the historical data .

Understanding the market of used cars is very pivotal in coming up with the best technology to solve the problems that have been encountered in the field. The challenges of traditional methods of pricing have been increasing day by day as the market evolves. These traditional methods fail to keep in pace with the new features of the automotive market therefore making it important to come up with a model that solves the challenge. Factors influencing the price of a car including make, model, year of manufacturer, among others are vital when coming up with an effective model.

The power of machine learning is of unlimited strength and use. By using sophisticated datasets, employing effective algorithms to models may lead to an accurate prediction of used car price. Machine learning models may keep in pace with the dynamic and fluctuating market therefore making it more effective. Our project will use this technology to assess the worth of pre owned vehicles.

We start by collecting the data and making them available for the next steps. Diverse set of features such as make, model, year ,customer review among others allows machine learning to make predictions on the price of used cars. Gathering these comprehensive datasets is the first step.

The collected data is then cleaned and preprocessed so that the model is not hindered by missing values, inconsistencies and outliers. Cleaning and preprocessing data ensures that the data is ready to be trained by machine model for a high performance.

In This phase, we are going to make a choice on which model is essential and effective for our problem. Regression models such as linear regression or decision tree regression are commonly used in predicting numerical values making them ideal for predicting the price of used cars. In our case we are going to use a regression model.

Our algorithmic framework involves our chosen model as a regression model. Regression model allows us to establish a relationship between the selected variables with the target variable which is our car price. We will train our model on a subset of dataset using optimization techniques to minimize prediction errors.

Training involves feeding the model with a cleaned dataset to make it easy for the model to learn the patterns and relationship between the input variables provided and target output variable. Iterative adjustments are made to the model based on its performance and until optimal accuracy is achieved.

In order for the machine learning model to be effective and of high performance it is important to understand the features which significantly impact the price of used cars. To provide insights to feature important machine learning models ensemble analysis techniques such as random forests or gradient boosting. These analyses aid at making informed decisions rather than providing interpretability of the model regarding the pricing strategies.

In order to ensure accuracy and reliability to our machine learning model, its essential for the model to be evaluated. Different metrics are used to evaluate machine learning models such as Mean Absolute Error(MAE), Mean Squared Error(MSE), and R-squared. The model performance must be assessed on different subsets of data by cross-validation techniques to minimize the risk of overfitting.

The automotive market, especially the car market, is a dynamic field that is influenced by economic fluctuations, consumer preferences and other external factors. However, machine learning that is designed to predict the price of used cars must be adaptable and capable of continuous learning. These models require regular updates to the model incorporating new data and retraining at intervals to ensure its relevance and accuracy over time.

By using the historical datasets and sophisticated algorithms, we can now unravel a web of factors influencing the value of pre owned cars. Our articles embrace the rise of new technology of machine learning by predicting the price of used cars. By using the datasets and machine learning algorithms we have been able to offer a dynamic and accurate solution to the challenges of assessing used cars.

As we bid farewell to outdated traditional methodologies, the adoption of machine learning in the used car market brings forth a new era of precision and efficiency. The ability to adapt to changing dynamic positions, machine learning is an important tool to both sellers and buyers, offering transparency, accuracy and a glimpse to the future of the automotive market.

Our article describes this technology as a paradigm shift of how we perceive and navigate the realm of pre owned vehicles rather than an advancement of technology. Use of machine learning is not a choice but a step towards a more informed and dynamic automotive future.

Call-to-Action

We invite fellow enthusiasts and industry professionals to explore the possibilities of machine learning in their projects. Embrace the data-driven revolution and contribute to the evolution of predictive modeling in diverse domains. For those intrigued by the technical aspects of our project, further details, code snippets, and datasets are available here;

https://github.com/mkwasi5930/used-car-price-prediction

Stay tuned for future updates as we continue refining and expanding our used car price prediction model, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the dynamic world of machine learning and automotive valuation.

For more articles, tutorials and updates you can follow me here:

https://github.com/mkwasi5930

https://www.linkedin.com/in/abednego-mutuku-a91935236?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app

https://twitter.com/mkwasi_?t=_P1YiYUIZDRtiAMg5hC1nQ&s=09

Continue reading here:
Predicting The Price Of Used Cars Using Machine Learning - Medium

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on Predicting The Price Of Used Cars Using Machine Learning – Medium

Meta looking to use exotic, custom CPU in its datacenters for machine learning and AI yet another indication that … – TechRadar

We previously reported that Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, plans to deploy its own custom-designed artificial intelligence chips, codenamed Artemis, into its data centers this year, but would continue using Nvidia H100 GPUs alongside them - for the foreseeable future at least.

However, The Register now claims job advertisements for ASIC engineers with expertise in architecture, design, and testing have been spotted in Bangalore, India, and Sunnyvale, California, indicating Meta's intentions to develop its own AI hardware.

The job descriptions suggest that Meta is seeking professionals to "help architect state-of-the-art machine learning accelerators" and to design complex SoCs and IPs for datacenter applications. Some of these roles were initially posted on LinkedIn in late December 2023 and re-posted two weeks ago, with the Sunnyvale roles offering salaries nearing $200,000.

While the exact nature of Meta's project remains unspecified, it's likely linked to the company's previously announced "Meta Training Inference Accelerators," set to be launched later this year.

Meta's ambitions also extend to artificial general intelligence, a venture that might necessitate specialized silicon.

With the increasing demand for AI and Nvidia's struggle to meet this demand, Meta's move to develop its own technology is a strategic step to ensure it doesn't have to compete with rivals for hardware in a super-hot market.

The Register reports that the Indian government will likely welcome Meta's decision to advertise in Bangalore, as the nation seeks to become a significant player in the global semiconductor industry.

In addition, rumors suggest that Microsoft is also reducing its dependence on Nvidia by developing a server networking card to optimize machine-learning workload performance. This trend suggests Nvidia's most formidable rivals are looking for ways to become less reliant on its massively in-demand hardware.

Read this article:
Meta looking to use exotic, custom CPU in its datacenters for machine learning and AI yet another indication that ... - TechRadar

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on Meta looking to use exotic, custom CPU in its datacenters for machine learning and AI yet another indication that … – TechRadar

Accelerating large-scale neural network training on CPUs with ThirdAI and AWS Graviton | Amazon Web Services – AWS Blog

This guest post is written by Vihan Lakshman, Tharun Medini, and Anshumali Shrivastava from ThirdAI.

Large-scale deep learning has recently produced revolutionary advances in a vast array of fields. Although this stunning progress in artificial intelligence remains remarkable, the financial costs and energy consumption required to train these models has emerged as a critical bottleneck due to the need for specialized hardware like GPUs. Traditionally, even modestly sized neural models have required costly hardware accelerators for training, which limits the number of organizations with the financial means to take full advantage of this technology.

Founded in 2021, ThirdAI Corp. is a startup dedicated to the mission of democratizing artificial intelligence technologies through algorithmic and software innovations that fundamentally change the economics of deep learning. We have developed a sparse deep learning engine, known as BOLT, that is specifically designed for training and deploying models on standard CPU hardware as opposed to costly and energy-intensive accelerators like GPUs. Many of our customers have reported strong satisfaction with ThirdAIs ability to train and deploy deep learning models for critical business problems on cost-effective CPU infrastructure.

In this post, we investigate of potential for the AWS Graviton3 processor to accelerate neural network training for ThirdAIs unique CPU-based deep learning engine.

At ThirdAI, we achieve these breakthroughs in efficient neural network training on CPUs through proprietary dynamic sparse algorithms that activate only a subset of neurons for a given input (see the following figure), thereby side-stepping the need for full dense computations. Unlike other approaches to sparse neural network training, ThirdAI uses locality-sensitive hashing to dynamically select neurons for a given input as shown in the bold lines below. In certain cases, we have even observed that our sparse CPU-based models train faster than the comparable dense architecture on GPUs.

Given that many of our target customers operate in the cloudand among those, the majority use AWSwe were excited to try out the AWS Graviton3 processor to see if the impressive price-performance improvements of Amazons silicon innovation would translate to our unique workload of sparse neural network training and thereby provide further savings for customers. Although both the research community and the AWS Graviton team have delivered exciting advances in accelerating neural network inference on CPU instances, we at ThirdAI are, to our knowledge, the first to seriously study how to train neural models on CPUs efficiently.

As shown in our results, we observed a significant training speedup with AWS Graviton3 over the comparable Intel and NVIDIA instances on several representative modeling workloads.

For our evaluation, we considered two comparable AWS CPU instances: a c6i.8xlarge machine powered by Intels Ice Lake processor and a c7g.8xlarge powered by AWS Graviton3. The following table summarizes the details of each instance.

For our first evaluation, we focus on the problem of extreme multi-label classification (XMC), an increasingly popular machine learning (ML) paradigm with a number of practical applications in search and recommendations (including at Amazon). For our evaluation, we focus on the public Amazon-670K product recommendation task, which, given an input product, identifies similar products from a collection of over 670,000 items.

In this experiment, we benchmark ThirdAIs BOLT engine against TensorFlow 2.11 and PyTorch 2.0 on the aforementioned hardware choices: Intel Ice Lake, AWS Graviton3, and an NVIDIA T4G GPU. For our experiments on Intel and AWS Graviton, we use the AWS Deep Learning AMI (Ubuntu 18.04) version 59.0. For our GPU evaluation, we use the NVIDIA GPU-Optimized Arm64 AMI, available via the AWS Marketplace. For this evaluation, we use the SLIDE model architecture, which achieves both competitive performance on this extreme classification task and strong training performance on CPUs. For our TensorFlow and PyTorch comparisons, we implement the analogous version of the SLIDE multi-layer perceptron (MLP) architecture with dense matrix multiplications. We train each model for five epochs (full passes through the training dataset) with a fixed batch size of 256 and learning rate of 0.001. We observed that all models achieved the same test accuracy of 33.6%.

The following chart compares the training time of ThirdAIs BOLT to TensorFlow 2.11 and PyTorch 2.0 on the Amazon670k extreme classification benchmark. All models achieve the same test precision. We observe that AWS Graviton3 considerably accelerates the performance of BOLT out of the box with no customizations neededby approximately 40%. ThirdAIs BOLT on AWS Graviton3 also achieves considerably faster training than the TensorFlow or PyTorch models trained on the GPU. Note that there is no ThirdAI result on the NVIDIA GPU benchmark because BOLT is designed to run on CPUs. We do not include TensorFlow and PyTorch CPU benchmarks because of the prohibitively long training time.

The following table summarizes the training time and test accuracy for each processor/specialized processor(GPU).

For our second evaluation, we focus on the popular Yelp Polarity sentiment analysis benchmark, which involves classifying a review as positive or negative. For this evaluation, we compare ThirdAIs Universal Deep Transformers (UDT) model against a fine-tuned DistilBERT network, a compressed pre-trained language model that achieves near-state-of-the-art performance with reduced inference latency. Because fine-tuning DistilBERT models on a CPU would take a prohibitively long time (at least several days), we benchmark ThirdAIs CPU-based models against DistilBERT fine-tuned on a GPU. We train all models with a batch size of 256 for a single pass through the data (one epoch). We note that we can achieve slightly higher accuracy with BOLT with additional passes through the data, but we restrict ourselves to a single pass in this evaluation for consistency.

As shown in the following figure, AWS Graviton3 again accelerates ThirdAIs UDT model training considerably. Furthermore, UDT is able to achieve comparable test accuracy to DistilBERT with a fraction of the training time and without the need for a GPU. We note that there has also been recent work in optimizing the fine-tuning of Yelp Polarity on CPUs. Our models, however, still achieve greater efficiency gains and avoid the cost of pre-training, which is substantial and requires the use of hardware accelerators like GPUs.

The following table summarizes the training time, test accuracy, and inference latency.

For our final evaluation, we focus on the problem of multi-class text classification, which involves assigning a label to a given input text from a set of more than two output classes. We focus on the DBPedia benchmark, which consists of 14 possible output classes. Again, we see that AWS Graviton3 accelerates UDT performance over the comparable Intel instance by roughly 40%. We also see that BOLT achieves comparable results to the DistilBERT transformer-based model fine-tuned on a GPU while achieving sub-millisecond latency.

The following table summarizes the training time, test accuracy, and inference latency.

We have designed our BOLT software for compatibility with all major CPU architectures, including AWS Graviton3. In fact, we didnt have to make any customizations to our code to run on AWS Graviton3. Therefore, you can use ThirdAI for model training and deployment on AWS Graviton3 with no additional effort. In addition, as detailed in our recent research whitepaper, we have developed a set of novel mathematical techniques to automatically tune the specialized hyperparameters associated with our sparse models, allowing our models to work well immediately out of the box.

We also note that our models primarily work well for search, recommendation, and natural language processing tasks that typically feature large, high-dimensional output spaces and a requirement of extremely low inference latency. We are actively working on extending our methods to additional domains, such as computer vision, but be aware that our efficiency improvements do not translate to all ML domains at this time.

In this post, we investigated the potential for the AWS Graviton3 processor to accelerate neural network training for ThirdAIs unique CPU-based deep learning engine. Our benchmarks on search, text classification, and recommendations benchmarks suggest that AWS Graviton3 can accelerate ThirdAIs model training workloads by 3040% over the comparable x86 instances with a price-performance improvement of nearly 50%. Furthermore, because AWS Graviton3 instances are available at a lower cost than the analogous Intel and NVIDIA machines and enable shorter training and inference times, you can further unlock the value of the AWS pay-as-you-go usage model by using lower-cost machines for shorter durations of time.

We are very excited by the price and performance savings of AWS Graviton3 and will look to pass on these improvements to our customers so they can enjoy faster ML training and inference with improved performance on low-cost CPUs. As customers of AWS ourselves, we are delighted by the speed at which AWS Graviton3 allows us to experiment with our models, and we look forward to using more cutting-edge silicon innovation from AWS going forward. Graviton Technical Guide is a good resource to consider while evaluating your ML workloads to run on Graviton. You can also try Graviton t4g instances free trial.

The content and opinions in this post are those of the third-party author and AWS is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this post. At the time of writing the blog the most current instance were c6i and hence the comparison was done with c6i instances.

Vihan Lakshman Vihan Lakshman is a research scientist at ThirdAI Corp. focused on developing systems for resource-efficient deep learning. Prior to ThirdAI, he worked as an Applied Scientist at Amazon and receivedundergraduate and masters degrees from Stanford University. Vihan is also a recipient of a National Science Foundation research fellowship.

Tharun Medini Tharun Medini is the co-founder and CTO of ThirdAI Corp. He did his PhD in Hashing Algorithms for Search and Information Retrieval at Rice University. Prior to ThirdAI, Tharun worked at Amazon and Target. Tharun is the recipient of numerous awards for his research, including the Ken Kennedy Institute BP Fellowship, the American Society of Indian Engineers Scholarship, and a Rice University Graduate Fellowship.

Anshumali Shrivastava Anshumali Shrivastavais an associate professor in the computer science department at Rice University. He is also the Founder and CEO of ThirdAI Corp, a company that is democratizing AI to commodity hardware through software innovations. His broad research interests include probabilistic algorithms for resource-frugal deep learning. In 2018, Science news named him one of the Top-10 scientists under 40 to watch. He is a recipient of the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, a Young Investigator Award from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, a machine learning research award from Amazon, and a Data Science Research Award from Adobe. He has won numerous paper awards, including Best Paper Awards at NIPS 2014 andMLSys 2022, as well as the Most Reproducible Paper Award at SIGMOD 2019. His work on efficient machine learning technologies on CPUs has been covered by popular press including Wall Street Journal, New York Times, TechCrunch, NDTV, etc.

Read the original post:
Accelerating large-scale neural network training on CPUs with ThirdAI and AWS Graviton | Amazon Web Services - AWS Blog

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on Accelerating large-scale neural network training on CPUs with ThirdAI and AWS Graviton | Amazon Web Services – AWS Blog

Build a robust text-to-SQL solution generating complex queries, self-correcting, and querying diverse data sources … – AWS Blog

Structured Query Language (SQL) is a complex language that requires an understanding of databases and metadata. Today, generative AI can enable people without SQL knowledge. This generative AI task is called text-to-SQL, which generates SQL queries from natural language processing (NLP) and converts text into semantically correct SQL. The solution in this post aims to bring enterprise analytics operations to the next level by shortening the path to your data using natural language.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), NLP-based SQL generation has undergone a significant transformation. Demonstrating exceptional performance, LLMs are now capable of generating accurate SQL queries from natural language descriptions. However, challenges still remain. First, human language is inherently ambiguous and context-dependent, whereas SQL is precise, mathematical, and structured. This gap may result in inaccurate conversion of the users needs into the SQL thats generated. Second, you might need to build text-to-SQL features for every database because data is often not stored in a single target. You may have to recreate the capability for every database to enable users with NLP-based SQL generation. Third, despite the larger adoption of centralized analytics solutions like data lakes and warehouses, complexity rises with different table names and other metadata that is required to create the SQL for the desired sources. Therefore, collecting comprehensive and high-quality metadata also remains a challenge. To learn more about text-to-SQL best practices and design patterns, see Generating value from enterprise data: Best practices for Text2SQL and generative AI.

Our solution aims to address those challenges using Amazon Bedrock and AWS Analytics Services. We use Anthropic Claude v2.1 on Amazon Bedrock as our LLM. To address the challenges, our solution first incorporates the metadata of the data sources within the AWS Glue Data Catalog to increase the accuracy of the generated SQL query. The workflow also includes a final evaluation and correction loop, in case any SQL issues are identified by Amazon Athena, which is used downstream as the SQL engine. Athena also allows us to use a multitude of supported endpoints and connectors to cover a large set of data sources.

After we walk through the steps to build the solution, we present the results of some test scenarios with varying SQL complexity levels. Finally, we discuss how it is straightforward to incorporate different data sources to your SQL queries.

There are three critical components in our architecture: Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with database metadata, a multi-step self-correction loop, and Athena as our SQL engine.

We use the RAG method to retrieve the table descriptions and schema descriptions (columns) from the AWS Glue metastore to ensure that the request is related to the right table and datasets. In our solution, we built the individual steps to run a RAG framework with the AWS Glue Data Catalog for demonstration purposes. However, you can also use knowledge bases in Amazon Bedrock to build RAG solutions quickly.

The multi-step component allows the LLM to correct the generated SQL query for accuracy. Here, the generated SQL is sent for syntax errors. We use Athena error messages to enrich our prompt for the LLM for more accurate and effective corrections in the generated SQL.

You can consider the error messages occasionally coming from Athena like feedback. The cost implications of an error correction step are negligible compared to the value delivered. You can even include these corrective steps as supervised reinforced learning examples to fine-tune your LLMs. However, we did not cover this flow in our post for simplicity purposes.

Note that there is always inherent risk of having inaccuracies, which naturally comes with generative AI solutions. Even if Athena error messages are highly effective to mitigate this risk, you can add more controls and views, such as human feedback or example queries for fine-tuning, to further minimize such risks.

Athena not only allows us to correct the SQL queries, but it also simplifies the overall problem for us because it serves as the hub, where the spokes are multiple data sources. Access management, SQL syntax, and more are all handled via Athena.

The following diagram illustrates the solution architecture.

Figure 1. The solution architecture and process flow.

The process flow includes the following steps:

At this stage, the process is ready to receive the query in natural language. Steps 79 represent a correction loop, if applicable.

For this post, you should complete the following prerequisites:

You can use the following Jupyter notebook, which includes all the code snippets provided in this section, to build the solution. We recommend using Amazon SageMaker Studio to open this notebook with an ml.t3.medium instance with the Python 3 (Data Science) kernel. For instructions, refer to Train a Machine Learning Model. Complete the following steps to set up the solution:

In this section, we run our solution with different example scenarios to test different complexity levels of SQL queries.

To test our text-to-SQL, we use two datasets available from IMDB. Subsets of IMDb data are available for personal and non-commercial use. You can download the datasets and store them in Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3). You can use the following Spark SQL snippet to create tables in AWS Glue. For this example, we use title_ratings and title:

In this scenario, our dataset is stored in an S3 bucket. Athena has an S3 connector that allows you to use Amazon S3 as a data source that can be queried.

For our first query, we provide the input I am new to this. Can you help me see all the tables and columns in imdb schema?

The following is the generated query:

The following screenshot and code show our output.

For our second query, we ask Show me all the title and details in US region whose rating is more than 9.5.

The following is our generated query:

The response is as follows.

For our third query, we enter Great Response! Now show me all the original type titles having ratings more than 7.5 and not in the US region.

The following query is generated:

We get the following results.

This scenario simulates a SQL query that has syntax issues. Here, the generated SQL will be self-corrected based on the response from Athena. In the following response, Athena gave a COLUMN_NOT_FOUND error and mentioned that table_description cant be resolved:

To use the solution with other data sources, Athena handles the job for you. To do this, Athena uses data source connectors that can be used with federated queries. You can consider a connector as an extension of the Athena query engine. Pre-built Athena data source connectors exist for data sources like Amazon CloudWatch Logs, Amazon DynamoDB, Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility), and Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS), and JDBC-compliant relational data sources such MySQL, and PostgreSQL under the Apache 2.0 license. After you set up a connection to any data source, you can use the preceding code base to extend the solution. For more information, refer to Query any data source with Amazon Athenas new federated query.

To clean up the resources, you can start by cleaning up your S3 bucket where the data resides. Unless your application invokes Amazon Bedrock, it will not incur any cost. For the sake of infrastructure management best practices, we recommend deleting the resources created in this demonstration.

In this post, we presented a solution that allows you to use NLP to generate complex SQL queries with a variety of resources enabled by Athena. We also increased the accuracy of the generated SQL queries via a multi-step evaluation loop based on error messages from downstream processes. Additionally, we used the metadata in the AWS Glue Data Catalog to consider the table names asked in the query through the RAG framework. We then tested the solution in various realistic scenarios with different query complexity levels. Finally, we discussed how to apply this solution to different data sources supported by Athena.

Amazon Bedrock is at the center of this solution. Amazon Bedrock can help you build many generative AI applications. To get started with Amazon Bedrock, we recommend following the quick start in the following GitHub repo and familiarizing yourself with building generative AI applications. You can also try knowledge bases in Amazon Bedrock to build such RAG solutions quickly.

Sanjeeb Panda is a Data and ML engineer at Amazon. With the background in AI/ML, Data Science and Big Data, Sanjeeb design and develop innovative data and ML solutions that solve complex technical challenges and achieve strategic goals for global 3P sellers managing their businesses on Amazon. Outside of his work as a Data and ML engineer at Amazon, Sanjeeb Panda is an avid foodie and music enthusiast.

Burak Gozluklu is a Principal AI/ML Specialist Solutions Architect located in Boston, MA. He helps strategic customers adopt AWS technologies and specifically Generative AI solutions to achieve their business objectives. Burak has a PhD in Aerospace Engineering from METU, an MS in Systems Engineering, and a post-doc in system dynamics from MIT in Cambridge, MA. Burak is still a research affiliate in MIT. Burak is passionate about yoga and meditation.

Excerpt from:
Build a robust text-to-SQL solution generating complex queries, self-correcting, and querying diverse data sources ... - AWS Blog

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on Build a robust text-to-SQL solution generating complex queries, self-correcting, and querying diverse data sources … – AWS Blog

AHA Issues Statement on the Use of AI in Cardiovascular Care – HealthITAnalytics.com

March 01, 2024 -The American Heart Association (AHA) released a scientific statement in Circulation this week detailing the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) use in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

The statement is the first of its kind from the AHA, underscoring continued interest from healthcare organizations in how AI could potentially transform the industry. The report outlined limitations of these technologies, potential applications, challenges, and how AI may be deployed safely and effectively.

Here, we present the state-of-the-art including the latest science regarding specific AI usesfrom imaging and wearables to electrocardiography and genetics, said the chair of the statements writing committee Antonis Armoundas, PhD, a principal investigator at the Cardiovascular Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in a press release. Among the objectives of this manuscript is to identify best practices as well as gaps and challenges that may improve the applicability of AI tools in each area.

Multiple factors limiting the use of AI in cardiovascular care were described: lack of protocols for appropriate information sourcing and sharing; legal and ethical hurdles; the need to grow the scientific knowledge base around these technologies; and the absence of robust regulatory pathways, among others.

Robust prospective clinical validation in large diverse populations that minimizes various forms of bias is essential to address uncertainties and bestow trust, which, in turn, will help to increase clinical acceptance and adoption, Armoundas noted.

The statement also reviewed potential cardiovascular applications for AI tools, some of which are already in use.

AI and machine learning have significant potential to improve medical imaging, but challenges abound. The AHAs statement emphasized that using these tools for image interpretation is difficult due to a lack of representative, high-quality datasets, and further indicated that these technologies need to be validated in each potential use case prior to deployment.

AI could also be useful in interpreting information from implants, wearables, electrocardiograms, and genetic data.

Numerous applications already exist where AI/machine learning-based digital tools can improve screening, extract insights into what factors improve an individual patients health and develop precision treatments for complex health conditions, said Armoundas.

The statement also asserted that education and research are crucial to making good on the promise of healthcare AI.

There is an urgent need to develop programs that will accelerate the education of the science behind AI/machine learning tools, thus accelerating the adoption and creation of manageable, cost-effective, automated processes. We need more AI/machine learning-based precision medicine tools to help address core unmet needs in medicine that can subsequently be tested in robust clinical trials, Armoundas continued. This process must organically incorporate the need to avoid bias and maximize generalizability of findings in order to avoid perpetuating existing health care inequities.

The AHA is the latest national healthcare stakeholder to weigh in on how AI should be implemented across the industry.

This week, the American Medical Association (AMA) and Manatt Health published The Emerging Landscape of Augmented Intelligence in Health Care report, which outlines key terms, potential use cases, and risks associated with these tools.

The report explored both clinical and administrative applications for AI in an effort to assist clinicians as they navigate the implementation of the technology.

Alongside opportunities and risks, the AMA also laid out critical questions that healthcare organizations should be asking themselves as they consider adopting AI and other advanced analytics tools.

View original post here:
AHA Issues Statement on the Use of AI in Cardiovascular Care - HealthITAnalytics.com

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on AHA Issues Statement on the Use of AI in Cardiovascular Care – HealthITAnalytics.com

Exploration and machine learning model development for T2 NSCLC with bronchus infiltration and obstructive … – Nature.com

Clinical characteristics of T2 stage NSCLC patients in different groups

Variations in clinical characteristics between the MBI/(P/ATL) and non-MBI/(P/ATL) groups were prominently attributed to the diameter linked to the T2 stage (Table 1). Notable disparities existed in gender distribution, with the MBI/(P/ATL) group demonstrating a higher proportion of males (58.4%/55.3% vs. 53.4%) and a heightened occurrence of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (46.0%/40.8% vs. 32.7%). Significantly, a larger proportion of primary sites in the main bronchus were identified in the MBI/(P/ATL) group (14.1%/7.8% vs. 1.7%), accompanied by a more advanced histologic grading (p<0.001).

The MBI/(P/ATL) group, especially the P/ATL subgroup, exhibited higher incidences of lymph nodes (N0: 41.8%/34.0% vs. 53.0%). Regarding treatment modalities, the MBI/(P/ATL) group displayed a stronger propensity to undergo chemotherapy (48.0%/51.1% vs. 41.7%) and radiation therapy (43.2%/46.8% vs. 38.2%). Compared to MBI/None group, the incidence of surgery was markedly lower in the P/ATL subgroup (26.5% vs. 49.9%/46.1%). Moreover, we counted those who underwent surgery and found that compared to surgery alone, the MBI/(P/ATL) group experienced a much higher proportion of preoperative induction therapy or postoperative adjuvant therapy than the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group (41.3%/54.7% vs. 36.6%).

In relation to tumor diameter, the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group had a larger diameter due to the incorporation of cases surpassing 3cm. In general, profound differences in clinical characteristics were observed between the groups, with the MBI/(P/ATL) group manifesting extensive disparities, especially within the P/ATL subgroup, compared to the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group.

Through KaplanMeier survival analysis, it was discerned that the OS for the MBI (Diameter>3) group was adversely impacted in comparison to the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group (p=0.012) (Fig.1A). Notably, regardless of the diameter size, the OS for the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group was significantly superior to that of the P/ATL group (p<0.0001) (Fig.1B).

KaplanMeier analysis of patients with different T2 types of NSCLC. (A,B) KaplanMeier analysis of overall survival (OS) in the Pneumonia or Atelectasis (P/ATL) and Main Bronchus Infiltration (MBI) groups versus the groups without P/ATL and MBI, prior to propensity score matching (PSM). (C,D) KaplanMeier analysis of OS in the P/ATL and MBI groups versus the non-MBI and P/ATL groups following PSM. (E,F) KaplanMeier analysis of cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the P/ATL and MBI groups versus the non-MBI and P/ATL groups after PSM.

Given the pronounced heterogeneity in clinical characteristics among the three groups, we adopted the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method to mitigate the impact of diverse background variables, thereby harmonizing potential prognostic factors between the P/ATL and MBI groups compared to the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group. This approach ensured that the p-values from t-tests or chi-square tests for all clinical characteristics between the respective groups exceeded 0.1, indicating a balanced comparison (Supplementary data 1). Following this adjustment, we analyzed OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) using the KM method for the P/ATL vs. None groups and the MBI vs. None groups, respectively. Our findings revealed that the P/ATL group exhibited a significantly poorer prognosis than the None group, with p of 0.00015 for OS and 0.00021 for CSS (Fig.1C,E). Conversely, the MBI group's prognosis was marginally inferior compared to the None group, with p of 0.037 for OS and 0.016 for CSS (Fig.1D,F).

Our findings indicate that at the T2 stage, both the MBI and P/ATL groups demonstrate an elevated risk for lymph node metastasis. To ascertain whether MBI and P/ATL act as independent risk factors for these lymph node metastase, we employed a multifactorial logistic regression analysis. The results illuminated those individuals in the MBI/(P/ATL) group had a notably higher risk of lymph node metastasis compared to those in the non-MBI/(P/ATL) group. In detail, MBI was found to be an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis (OR=1.69, 95% CI 1.551.85, p<0.001), as was P/ATL (OR=2.10, 95% CI 1.932.28, p<0.001) (Table 2).

To evaluate the optimal treatment for NSCLC patients with two specific types of T2 tumors, we integrated seven treatment modalities: None, Radiation Therapy Alone, Chemotherapy Alone, Radiation+Chemotherapy, Surgery Alone, Initial Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Treatment, and Induction Therapy Followed by Surgery. We conducted a multifactorial Cox regression analysis of OS to assess the prognostic impact of these treatments in patients with P/ATL and MBI, respectively, using Surgery Alone as the reference group (Table 3). The results indicated that surgical treatments significantly outperformed both Radiotherapy Alone and Chemotherapy Alone, as well as the combination of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, in both subgroups. Specifically, in patients with MBI, Initial Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Treatment (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.670.90, p=0.001) and Induction Therapy Followed by Surgery (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.480.87, p=0.003) were significantly more effective than Surgery Alone. Conversely, for patients with P/ATL, neither Initial Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Treatment (HR=1.17, 95% CI 0.991.37, p=0.067) nor Induction Therapy Followed by Surgery (HR=1.05, 95% CI 0.781.40, p=0.758) showed any advantage over Surgery Alone.

Given the limited therapeutic options for patients with distant metastases, we analyzed the KM survival with different therapeutic strategies for patients with P/ATL and MBI at stages N0-1M0 and N2-3M0, respectively. In patients with MBI at the N2-3M0 stage, preoperative Induction Therapy significantly improved prognosis, illustrating a marked enhancement in outcomes. For the N0-1M0 stage in MBI patients, while there was a clear improvement in median survival with preoperative Induction Therapy, this improvement did not reach statistical significance. Additionally, postoperative Adjuvant Therapy substantially improved outcomes over Surgery Alone for MBI patients across both N0-1M0 and N2-3M0 stages (Fig.2A,B). Conversely, these treatments did not yield significant benefits for patients with P/ATL (Fig.2C,D). Moreover, in both subgroups for the N0-1M0 stage, prognosis following Surgery Alone was significantly better than with Chemoradiotherapy, whereas at the N2-3M0 stage, Surgery Alone did not show superiority over Chemoradiotherapy in terms of prognosis (Fig.2).

KaplanMeier analysis comparing the effectiveness of various treatment modalities in patients with Main Bronchus Infiltration (MBI) or Pneumonia/Atelectasis (P/ATL) based on nodal involvement. (A) Overall Survival (OS) associated with different treatment approaches in MBI patients classified as N0-1M0. (B) OS associated with different treatment approaches in MBI patients classified as N2-3M0. (C) OS associated with different treatment approaches in P/ATL patients classified as N0-1M0. (D) OS associated with different treatment approaches in P/ATL patients classified as N2-3M0.

Given the potential notable disparities in clinicopathologic variables and prognoses across the MBI and P/ATL subgroups, we aimed to delve deeper into the varying impacts that different factors might exhibit on mortality within these subgroups. Accordingly, multifactorial logistic regression was applied to analyze the 5-year OS rate within the MBI and P/ATL subgroups. In the MBI group, sex, histologic type, grade, age, N stage, M stage, site, marital status and treatment type were identified as independent factors associated with 5-year OS. In the P/ATL group, histologic type, grade, age, race, N stage, M stage and treatment type were recognized as independent factors associated with 5-year OS (Supplementary data 2).

We incorporated the factors independently correlated with 5-year OS from the MBI and P/ATL groups for prognostic modeling. The patients were randomized into training and test data groups at a 7:3 ratio. Subsequently, the best parameters for each model were adjusted and training was conducted within the training set to optimize performance. In the validation set, we performed ROC and DCA analyses of MBI and P/ATL groups for all models (Fig.3A,B). The XGBoost model also demonstrated optimal AUC with 0.814 and 0.853 respectively in both MBI and P/ATL groups, and the DCA curves further affirmed that the XGBoost model secures a higher net benefit compared to other models across varying threshold ranges (Fig.3C,D). The specific performance of each model in the test set is shown in Supplementary Data 3. In addition, we performed the Delong test and found that the XGBoost model significantly outperforms the rest of the models in both MBI and P/ATL (Supplementary Data 4).

Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) analyses of Main Bronchus Infiltration (MBI) and Pneumonia/Atelectasis (P/ATL) groups. (A) ROC curves for each model in the MBI group. (B) ROC curves for each model in the P/ATL group. (C) DCA curves for each model in the MBI group. (D) DCA curves for each model in the P/ATL group.

Consequently, the calibration curves for the XGBoost model in both the MBI and P/ATL groups within the test set were also plotted, revealing commendable predictive performance of the model (Fig.4A,B). Additionally, we scrutinized the importance scores of the variables in both models (Fig.4C,D).

Calibration curves and feature significance plots of the XGBoost model for Main Bronchus Infiltration (MBI) and Pneumonia/Atelectasis (P/ATL) groups. (A) Calibration curve of the XGBoost model for the MBI group. (B) Calibration curve of the XGBoost model for the P/ATL group. (C) Feature significance plot of the XGBoost model for the MBI group. (D) Feature significance plot of the XGBoost model for the P/ATL group.

To assist researchers and clinicians in utilizing our prognostic model, we developed user-friendly web applications for stage T2 NSCLC MBI and P/ATL groups (Fig.5A,B), respectively. The web interface allows users to input clinical features of new samples, and the application can then help predict survival probabilities and survival status based on the patient's information. And the model can help clinicians to develop appropriate treatment strategies for this subgroup of patients by first selecting other parameters of a particular patient and focusing on the change of their 5-year survival by adjusting different treatments. For example, a 6574year old male with T2N3M0 stage lung adenocarcinoma, graded as grade III located in the upper lobe of a married MBI patient, his 5-year OS was 19.07% if he received Chemoradiotherapy, 23.83% if he received only surgery, and 5-year OS if he received Induction therapy followed by surgery was 35.51%, and 31.28% for those who received Initial surgery followed by adjuvant treatment.

See the original post here:
Exploration and machine learning model development for T2 NSCLC with bronchus infiltration and obstructive ... - Nature.com

Posted in Machine Learning | Comments Off on Exploration and machine learning model development for T2 NSCLC with bronchus infiltration and obstructive … – Nature.com