Modeling non-genetic information dynamics in cells using reservoir computing.

Virtually all cells use energy-driven, ion-specific membrane pumps to maintain large transmembrane gradients of Na+, K+, Cl-, Mg++, and Ca++, but the corresponding evolutionary benefit remains unclear. We propose that these gradients enable a dynamic and versatile biological system that acquires, analyzes, and responds to environmental information. We hypothesize that environmental signals are transmitted into the cell by ion fluxes along pre-existing gradients through gated ion-specific membrane channels. The consequent changes in cytoplasmic ion concentration can generate a local response or orchestrate global/regional cellular dynamics through wire-like ion fluxes along pre-existing and self-assembling cytoskeleton to engage the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, and nucleus.

Presurgical Upgrade Prediction of DCIS to Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Using Time-dependent Deep Learning Models with DCE MRI.

Purpose To determine whether time-dependent deep learning models can outperform single time point models in predicting preoperative upgrade of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive malignancy at dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) breast MRI without a lesion segmentation prerequisite. Materials and Methods In this exploratory study, 154 cases of biopsy-proven DCIS (25 upgraded at surgery and 129 not upgraded) were selected consecutively from a retrospective cohort of preoperative DCE MRI in women with a mean age of 59 years at time of diagnosis from 2012 to 2022. Binary classification was implemented with convolutional neural network (CNN)-long short-term memory (LSTM) architectures benchmarked against traditional CNNs without manual segmentation of the lesions. Combinatorial performance analysis of ResNet50 versus VGG16-based models was performed with each contrast phase. Binary classification area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was reported. Results VGG16-based models consistently provided better holdout test AUCs than did ResNet50 in CNN and CNN-LSTM studies (multiphase test AUC, 0.67 vs 0.59, respectively, for CNN models [P = .04] and 0.73 vs 0.62 for CNN-LSTM models [P = .008]). The time-dependent model (CNN-LSTM) provided a better multiphase test AUC over single time point (CNN) models (0.73 vs 0.67; P = .04). Conclusion Compared with single time point architectures, sequential deep learning algorithms using preoperative DCE MRI improved prediction of DCIS lesions upgraded to invasive malignancy without the need for lesion segmentation. Keywords: MRI, Dynamic Contrast-enhanced, Breast, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Pancreatic Cyst Size Measurement on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared to Pathology.

BACKGROUND: While multiple cyst features are evaluated for stratifying pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), cyst size is an important factor that can influence treatment strategies. When magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to evaluate IPMNs, no universally accepted sequence provides optimal size measurements. T2-weighted coronal/axial have been suggested as primary measurement sequences; however, it remains unknown how well these and maximum all-sequence diameter measurements correlate with pathology size. This study aims to compare agreement and bias between IPMN long-axis measurements on seven commonly obtained MRI sequences with pathologic size measurements. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included surgically resected IPMN cases with preoperative MRI exams. Long-axis diameter tumor measurements and the presence of worrisome features and/orhigh-risk stigmata were noted on all seven MRI sequences. MRI size and pathology agreement and MRI inter-observer agreement involved concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. The presence of worrisome features and high-risk stigmata were compared to the tumor grade using kappa analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis assessed the systematic bias between MRI-size and pathology. RESULTS: In 52 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 22 males), MRI sequences produced mean long-axis tumor measurements from 2.45-2.65 cm. The maximum MRI lesion size had a strong agreement with pathology (CCC = 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.89)). The maximum IPMN size was typically observed on the axial T1 arterial post-contrast and MRCP coronal series and overestimated size versus pathology with bias +0.34 cm. The radiologist interobserver agreement reached ICCs 0.74 to 0.91 on the MRI sequences. CONCLUSION: The maximum MRI IPMN size strongly correlated with but tended to overestimate the length compared to the pathology, potentially related to formalin tissue shrinkage during tissue processing.

A joint ESTRO and AAPM guideline for development, clinical validation and reporting of artificial intelligence models in radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Artificial Intelligence (AI) models in radiation therapy are being developed with increasing pace. Despite this, the radiation therapy community has not widely adopted these models in clinical practice. A cohesive guideline on how to develop, report and clinically validate AI algorithms might help bridge this gap. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Delphi process with all co-authors was followed to determine which topics should be addressed in this comprehensive guideline. Separate sections of the guideline, including Statements, were written by subgroups of the authors and discussed with the whole group at several meetings. Statements were formulated and scored as highly recommended or recommended. RESULTS: The following topics were found most relevant: Decision making, image analysis, volume segmentation, treatment planning, patient specific quality assurance of treatment delivery, adaptive treatment, outcome prediction, training, validation and testing of AI model parameters, model availability for others to verify, model quality assurance/updates and upgrades, ethics. Key references were given together with an outlook on current hurdles and possibilities to overcome these. 19 Statements were formulated. CONCLUSION: A cohesive guideline has been written which addresses main topics regarding AI in radiation therapy. It will help to guide development, as well as transparent and consistent reporting and validation of new AI tools and facilitate adoption.

Intricacies of Human-AI Interaction in Dynamic Decision-Making for Precision Oncology: A Case Study in Response-Adaptive Radiotherapy.

Background: Adaptive treatment strategies that can dynamically react to individual cancer progression can provide effective personalized care. Longitudinal multi-omics information, paired with an artificially intelligent clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS) can assist clinicians in determining optimal therapeutic options and treatment adaptations. However, AI-CDSS is not perfectly accurate, as such, clinicians' over/under reliance on AI may lead to unintended consequences, ultimately failing to develop optimal strategies. To investigate such collaborative decision-making process, we conducted a Human-AI interaction case study on response-adaptive radiotherapy (RT). Methods: We designed and conducted a two-phase study for two disease sites and two treatment modalities-adaptive RT for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and adaptive stereotactic body RT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-in which clinicians were asked to consider mid-treatment modification of the dose per fraction for a number of retrospective cancer patients without AI-support (Unassisted Phase) and with AI-assistance (AI-assisted Phase). The AI-CDSS graphically presented trade-offs in tumor control and the likelihood of toxicity to organs at risk, provided an optimal recommendation, and associated model uncertainties. In addition, we asked for clinicians' decision confidence level and trust level in individual AI recommendations and encouraged them to provide written remarks. We enrolled 13 evaluators (radiation oncology physicians and residents) from two medical institutions located in two different states, out of which, 4 evaluators volunteered in both NSCLC and HCC studies, resulting in a total of 17 completed evaluations (9 NSCLC, and 8 HCC). To limit the evaluation time to under an hour, we selected 8 treated patients for NSCLC and 9 for HCC, resulting in a total of 144 sets of evaluations (72 from NSCLC and 72 from HCC). Evaluation for each patient consisted of 8 required inputs and 2 optional remarks, resulting in up to a total of 1440 data points. Results: AI-assistance did not homogeneously influence all experts and clinical decisions. From NSCLC cohort, 41 (57%) decisions and from HCC cohort, 34 (47%) decisions were adjusted after AI assistance. Two evaluations (12%) from the NSCLC cohort had zero decision adjustments, while the remaining 15 (88%) evaluations resulted in at least two decision adjustments. Decision adjustment level positively correlated with dissimilarity in decision-making with AI [NSCLC: ρ = 0.53 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.60 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators adjusted their decision closer towards AI recommendation. Agreement with AI-recommendation positively correlated with AI Trust Level [NSCLC: ρ = 0.59 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.7 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators followed AI's recommendation if they agreed with that recommendation. The correlation between decision confidence changes and decision adjustment level showed an opposite trend [NSCLC: ρ = -0.24 ( p = 0.045), HCC: ρ = 0.28 ( p = 0.017)] reflecting the difference in behavior due to underlying differences in disease type and treatment modality. Decision confidence positively correlated with the closeness of decisions to the standard of care (NSCLC: 2 Gy/fx; HCC: 10 Gy/fx) indicating that evaluators were generally more confident in prescribing dose fractionations more similar to those used in standard clinical practice. Inter-evaluator agreement increased with AI-assistance indicating that AI-assistance can decrease inter-physician variability. The majority of decisions were adjusted to achieve higher tumor control in NSCLC and lower normal tissue complications in HCC. Analysis of evaluators' remarks indicated concerns for organs at risk and RT outcome estimates as important decision-making factors. Conclusions: Human-AI interaction depends on the complex interrelationship between expert's prior knowledge and preferences, patient's state, disease site, treatment modality, model transparency, and AI's learned behavior and biases. The collaborative decision-making process can be summarized as follows: (i) some clinicians may not believe in an AI system, completely disregarding its recommendation, (ii) some clinicians may believe in the AI system but will critically analyze its recommendations on a case-by-case basis; (iii) when a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicates the possibility for better outcomes they will adjust their decisions accordingly; and (iv) When a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicate a worse possible outcome they will disregard it and seek their own alternative approach.