1. |
- Barausse, Enrico, et al.
(author)
-
Prospects for fundamental physics with LISA
- 2020
-
In: General Relativity and Gravitation. - : SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS. - 0001-7701 .- 1572-9532. ; 52:8
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In this paper, which is of programmatic rather than quantitative nature, we aim to further delineate and sharpen the future potential of the LISA mission in the area of fundamental physics. Given the very broad range of topics that might be relevant to LISA,we present here a sample of what we view as particularly promising fundamental physics directions. We organize these directions through a "science-first" approach that allows us to classify how LISA data can inform theoretical physics in a variety of areas. For each of these theoretical physics classes, we identify the sources that are currently expected to provide the principal contribution to our knowledge, and the areas that need further development. The classification presented here should not be thought of as cast in stone, but rather as a fluid framework that is amenable to change with the flow of new insights in theoretical physics.
|
|
2. |
- Bulten, W, et al.
(author)
-
Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge
- 2022
-
In: Nature medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-170X .- 1078-8956. ; 28:1, s. 154-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing prostate cancer in biopsies. However, results have been limited to individual studies, lacking validation in multinational settings. Competitions have been shown to be accelerators for medical imaging innovations, but their impact is hindered by lack of reproducibility and independent validation. With this in mind, we organized the PANDA challenge—the largest histopathology competition to date, joined by 1,290 developers—to catalyze development of reproducible AI algorithms for Gleason grading using 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies. We validated that a diverse set of submitted algorithms reached pathologist-level performance on independent cross-continental cohorts, fully blinded to the algorithm developers. On United States and European external validation sets, the algorithms achieved agreements of 0.862 (quadratically weighted κ, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840–0.884) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.835–0.900) with expert uropathologists. Successful generalization across different patient populations, laboratories and reference standards, achieved by a variety of algorithmic approaches, warrants evaluating AI-based Gleason grading in prospective clinical trials.
|
|