6 ms·

A new artificial intelligence tool for cancer

114 points by mgh2 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aydyn 2y ago
Sounds promising but still needs to be independently validated. Its always wise to take AI medical research with a grain of salt.
- TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  Its Harvard, I would literally be more excited for the same announcement from the University or Wyoming. >Sounds promising More fabrications from one of the biggest grifting institutions on Earth, Harvard. So sick of their name even having merit. They literally license their name to sell fake textbooks at airports. Why are they even allowed on here.
  - Alifatisk 2y ago
    Is Harvard that bad? I assumed they were prestige.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      That's what they want you to think. I mean this entirely non-sarcastically. I don't know exactly how bad they are or aren't, but they work hard to look like prestige.
    - InkCanon 2y ago
      The root of prestige is the Latin word praestigium, which means an illusion or delusion. One of the most poetic pieces of etymology in todays society.
    - next_xibalba 2y ago
      There has been a lot of news about academic fraud at Harvard lately (although some cases date back decades). It’s pretty bad when the leader of the institution gets busted for it. Harvard’s reputation is in free fall. Anytime I see Harvard attached to some big announcement, I just assume the result has been p-hacked, exaggerated, or otherwise manipulated.
  - neom 2y ago
    "They literally license their name to sell fake textbooks at airports." ...huh? Can't find anything about this on google.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
camillomiller 2y ago
Undoubtedly interesting but still hard to take at face value given Harvard’s recent issues and retractions in cancer research.
- mgh2 2y ago
  https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cancer-institute-dana-farber-retracts-studies-errors-rcna143922 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cancer-institut...
pama 2y ago
The paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07894-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07894-z
- fernly 2y ago
  The _abstract_ is there; the full paper costs $29.99 or you need a university access id.
chefandy 2y ago
Good thing silicon valley is pumping billions of dollars and burning through unimaginable natural resources in the midst of a climate crisis to make systems that compete with commercial artists by selling cheap knock-offs of their artwork and relieving us of the burden of doing things like writing school papers or heartfelt personal correspondence or making animated avatars for instant messaging. There's money to be made, so why use this amazing new technology to solve humanity's actual problems instead of just shoving a bunch of mediocre who-gives-a-shit features into people's phones?
- tomr75 2y ago
  cool whine
  - chefandy 2y ago
    Cool response
- suby 2y ago
  I'm confused by your comment. This is an article about AI potentially helping with treatment of cancer. I strongly disagree in any case that we shouldn't be investing in AI. I think that there's likely a rising tides lifts all boats effect that occurs with improving AI in general -- it all feeds into each other. People who work on image generators are building expertise in AI and can potentially discover things which advance the field, or inspire others to work in the field. Humanity getting better at making AI generate images, or compete at video games, or predict protein folding, it all probably contributes to the rate of improvement in AI. And it's not unreasonable to think that AI will one day solve problems like cancer or climate change, so we should very much care about the rate of AI improvement. As for the power concerns, ironically, thanks to the increased demand we are seeing companies like Microsoft and Oracle make large investments in nuclear power now. It could be the case that this kicks starts a boom in the nuclear industry which eventually brings costs / eases regulations enough to put us in a better place in the long run. It's extremely complex, I don't think we can say at this point that investing in AI in the midst of a climate crisis is a mistake.
bcks 2y ago
Unrelated, "Harvard cancer institute moves to retract six studies, correct 31 others amid data manipulation claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39097031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39097031
- mgh2 2y ago
  Don't forget this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
sjmcmahon 2y ago
It's probably worth noting that there's a lot of discussion about challenges reproducing the workflow of this paper, and that as-described it seems to suffer from data leakage, so much so that you can replace sections of their algorithm with random initialisation and get at least as good results. See, e.g.: https://pubpeer.com/publications/C8CFF9DB8F11A586CBF9BD53402001 https://pubpeer.com/publications/C8CFF9DB8F11A586CBF9BD53402... Having been on both sides of the reviewing process, it seems incredibly difficult to get good peer review of data-intensive studies in medicine, as few people have the time to really dig into the detail of these models.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  Maybe there should be a system in place to fund that sort of thing.
- TeslaCoils 2y ago
  Nature article and reproducibility? Reminds me of https://spectrum.ieee.org/chip-design-controversy https://spectrum.ieee.org/chip-design-controversy
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
Expecting the code to be plagiarized and for the results to fail to replicate
theptip 2y ago
> CHIEF achieved nearly 94 percent accuracy in cancer detection and significantly outperformed current AI approaches across 15 datasets containing 11 cancer types I would have thought that performance vs. human level is the most interesting benchmark? Maybe that is covered in the Nature article.
HexDecOctBin 2y ago
> Title: A New Artificial Intelligence Tool for Cancer Curing it or causing it? Because that's the typical AI marketing appeal, no? "It will kill everyone, except our customers."
FerretFred 2y ago
UK reader here... As someone who's lived with a dear friend's cancer and affects of cancer for the past few years, I'd say that early/earlier diagnosis by whatever method is to be welcomed. However, if you then can't treat the disease then surely the early diagnosis will be for nothing? Sadly, with incidences of cancers of all sorts apparently increasing exponentially, wordldwife, not having the means to treat it is heartbreaking? Actually, as much money and effort needs to be invested in finding the cause of various cancers as curing it (or trying to cure it).
- long123 2y ago
  I learned this from my Chemistry prof: we actually are able to "cure" cancer now, if we are able to make accurate early diagnosis. If we detect the cancer early enough that it is still local (not yet spreading to other organs in your body), a surgery will do the job. That's why early diagnosis is soooo important and is a big focus right now. What about metastasis, you might ask. We have researches going on in this branch, too. And the big findings I heard is about immunotherapy techs. I'm not in this side of the field so cannot say much. But don't be sad, it's actually a fascinating time to be alive :)

114 points by mgh2 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aydyn 2y ago

Sounds promising but still needs to be independently validated. Its always wise to take AI medical research with a grain of salt.

TechDebtDevin 2y ago
Its Harvard, I would literally be more excited for the same announcement from the University or Wyoming. >Sounds promising More fabrications from one of the biggest grifting institutions on Earth, Harvard. So sick of their name even having merit. They literally license their name to sell fake textbooks at airports. Why are they even allowed on here.
- Alifatisk 2y ago
  Is Harvard that bad? I assumed they were prestige.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    That's what they want you to think. I mean this entirely non-sarcastically. I don't know exactly how bad they are or aren't, but they work hard to look like prestige.
  - InkCanon 2y ago
    The root of prestige is the Latin word praestigium, which means an illusion or delusion. One of the most poetic pieces of etymology in todays society.
  - next_xibalba 2y ago
    There has been a lot of news about academic fraud at Harvard lately (although some cases date back decades). It’s pretty bad when the leader of the institution gets busted for it. Harvard’s reputation is in free fall. Anytime I see Harvard attached to some big announcement, I just assume the result has been p-hacked, exaggerated, or otherwise manipulated.
- neom 2y ago
  "They literally license their name to sell fake textbooks at airports." ...huh? Can't find anything about this on google.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

camillomiller 2y ago

Undoubtedly interesting but still hard to take at face value given Harvard’s recent issues and retractions in cancer research.

mgh2 2y ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cancer-institute-dana-farber-retracts-studies-errors-rcna143922 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cancer-institut...

pama 2y ago

The paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07894-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07894-z

fernly 2y ago
The _abstract_ is there; the full paper costs $29.99 or you need a university access id.

chefandy 2y ago

Good thing silicon valley is pumping billions of dollars and burning through unimaginable natural resources in the midst of a climate crisis to make systems that compete with commercial artists by selling cheap knock-offs of their artwork and relieving us of the burden of doing things like writing school papers or heartfelt personal correspondence or making animated avatars for instant messaging. There's money to be made, so why use this amazing new technology to solve humanity's actual problems instead of just shoving a bunch of mediocre who-gives-a-shit features into people's phones?

tomr75 2y ago
cool whine
- chefandy 2y ago
  Cool response
suby 2y ago
I'm confused by your comment. This is an article about AI potentially helping with treatment of cancer. I strongly disagree in any case that we shouldn't be investing in AI. I think that there's likely a rising tides lifts all boats effect that occurs with improving AI in general -- it all feeds into each other. People who work on image generators are building expertise in AI and can potentially discover things which advance the field, or inspire others to work in the field. Humanity getting better at making AI generate images, or compete at video games, or predict protein folding, it all probably contributes to the rate of improvement in AI. And it's not unreasonable to think that AI will one day solve problems like cancer or climate change, so we should very much care about the rate of AI improvement. As for the power concerns, ironically, thanks to the increased demand we are seeing companies like Microsoft and Oracle make large investments in nuclear power now. It could be the case that this kicks starts a boom in the nuclear industry which eventually brings costs / eases regulations enough to put us in a better place in the long run. It's extremely complex, I don't think we can say at this point that investing in AI in the midst of a climate crisis is a mistake.

bcks 2y ago

Unrelated, "Harvard cancer institute moves to retract six studies, correct 31 others amid data manipulation claims" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39097031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39097031

mgh2 2y ago
Don't forget this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

sjmcmahon 2y ago

It's probably worth noting that there's a lot of discussion about challenges reproducing the workflow of this paper, and that as-described it seems to suffer from data leakage, so much so that you can replace sections of their algorithm with random initialisation and get at least as good results. See, e.g.: https://pubpeer.com/publications/C8CFF9DB8F11A586CBF9BD53402001 https://pubpeer.com/publications/C8CFF9DB8F11A586CBF9BD53402... Having been on both sides of the reviewing process, it seems incredibly difficult to get good peer review of data-intensive studies in medicine, as few people have the time to really dig into the detail of these models.

ericjmorey 2y ago
Maybe there should be a system in place to fund that sort of thing.
TeslaCoils 2y ago
Nature article and reproducibility? Reminds me of https://spectrum.ieee.org/chip-design-controversy https://spectrum.ieee.org/chip-design-controversy

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago

Expecting the code to be plagiarized and for the results to fail to replicate

theptip 2y ago

> CHIEF achieved nearly 94 percent accuracy in cancer detection and significantly outperformed current AI approaches across 15 datasets containing 11 cancer types I would have thought that performance vs. human level is the most interesting benchmark? Maybe that is covered in the Nature article.

HexDecOctBin 2y ago

> Title: A New Artificial Intelligence Tool for Cancer Curing it or causing it? Because that's the typical AI marketing appeal, no? "It will kill everyone, except our customers."

FerretFred 2y ago

UK reader here... As someone who's lived with a dear friend's cancer and affects of cancer for the past few years, I'd say that early/earlier diagnosis by whatever method is to be welcomed. However, if you then can't treat the disease then surely the early diagnosis will be for nothing? Sadly, with incidences of cancers of all sorts apparently increasing exponentially, wordldwife, not having the means to treat it is heartbreaking? Actually, as much money and effort needs to be invested in finding the cause of various cancers as curing it (or trying to cure it).

long123 2y ago
I learned this from my Chemistry prof: we actually are able to "cure" cancer now, if we are able to make accurate early diagnosis. If we detect the cancer early enough that it is still local (not yet spreading to other organs in your body), a surgery will do the job. That's why early diagnosis is soooo important and is a big focus right now. What about metastasis, you might ask. We have researches going on in this branch, too. And the big findings I heard is about immunotherapy techs. I'm not in this side of the field so cannot say much. But don't be sad, it's actually a fascinating time to be alive :)