Kevin Smith

Computer vision applications have come to rely increasingly on superpixels in recent years, but it is not always clear what constitutes a good superpixel algorithm. In an effort to understand the benefits and drawbacks of existing methods, we empirically compare five state-of-the-art superpixel algorithms for their ability to adhere to image boundaries, speed, memory efficiency, and their impact on segmentation performance. We then introduce a new superpixel algorithm, simple linear iterative clustering (SLIC), which adapts a k-means clustering approach to efficiently generate superpixels. Despite its simplicity, SLIC adheres to boundaries as well as or better than previous methods. At the same time, it is faster and more memory efficient, improves segmentation performance, and is straightforward to extend to supervoxel generation.

BACKGROUND: Hyperhidrosis can have profound effects on a patient's quality of life. Current treatment guidelines ignore disease severity. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to establish clinical guidelines for the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of primary focal hyperhidrosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A working group of eight nationally recognized experts was convened to develop the consensus statement using an evidence-based approach. RECOMMENDATIONS: An algorithm was designed to consider both disease severity and location. The Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) provides a qualitative measure that allows tailoring of treatment. Mild axillary, palmar, and plantar hyperhidrosis (HDSS score of 2) should initially be treated with topical aluminum chloride (AC). If the patient fails to respond to AC therapy, botulinum toxin A (BTX-A; axillae, palms, soles) and iontophoresis (palms, soles) should be the second-line therapy. In severe cases of axillary, palmar, and plantar hyperhidrosis (HDSS score of 3 or 4), both BTX-A and topical AC are first-line therapy. Iontophoresis is also first-line therapy for palmar and plantar hyperhidrosis. Craniofacial hyperhidrosis should be treated with oral medications, BTX-A, or topical AC as first-line therapy. Local surgery (axillary) and endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (palms and soles) should only be considered after failure of all other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines offer a rapid method to assess disease severity and to treat primary focal hyperhidrosis according to severity.

Importance: A computer algorithm that performs at or above the level of radiologists in mammography screening assessment could improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Objective: To perform an external evaluation of 3 commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection algorithms as independent mammography readers and to assess the screening performance when combined with radiologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case-control study was based on a double-reader population-based mammography screening cohort of women screened at an academic hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2008 to 2015. The study included 8805 women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent mammography screening and who did not have implants or prior breast cancer. The study sample included 739 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer (positive) and a random sample of 8066 healthy controls (negative for breast cancer). Main Outcomes and Measures: Positive follow-up findings were determined by pathology-verified diagnosis at screening or within 12 months thereafter. Negative follow-up findings were determined by a 2-year cancer-free follow-up. Three AI computer-aided detection algorithms (AI-1, AI-2, and AI-3), sourced from different vendors, yielded a continuous score for the suspicion of cancer in each mammography examination. For a decision of normal or abnormal, the cut point was defined by the mean specificity of the first-reader radiologists (96.6%). Results: The median age of study participants was 60 years (interquartile range, 50-66 years) for 739 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 years (interquartile range, 47-63 years) for 8066 healthy controls. The cases positive for cancer comprised 618 (84%) screen detected and 121 (16%) clinically detected within 12 months of the screening examination. The area under the receiver operating curve for cancer detection was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.948-0.965) for AI-1, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.910-0.934) for AI-2, and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.909-0.931) for AI-3. At the specificity of the radiologists, the sensitivities were 81.9% for AI-1, 67.0% for AI-2, 67.4% for AI-3, 77.4% for first-reader radiologist, and 80.1% for second-reader radiologist. Combining AI-1 with first-reader radiologists achieved 88.6% sensitivity at 93.0% specificity (abnormal defined by either of the 2 making an abnormal assessment). No other examined combination of AI algorithms and radiologists surpassed this sensitivity level. Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this study is the first independent evaluation of several AI computer-aided detection algorithms for screening mammography. The results of this study indicated that a commercially available AI computer-aided detection algorithm can assess screening mammograms with a sufficient diagnostic performance to be further evaluated as an independent reader in prospective clinical trials. Combining the first readers with the best algorithm identified more cases positive for cancer than combining the first readers with second readers.

BACKGROUND: We examined the potential change in cancer detection when using an artificial intelligence (AI) cancer-detection software to triage certain screening examinations into a no radiologist work stream, and then after regular radiologist assessment of the remainder, triage certain screening examinations into an enhanced assessment work stream. The purpose of enhanced assessment was to simulate selection of women for more sensitive screening promoting early detection of cancers that would otherwise be diagnosed as interval cancers or as next-round screen-detected cancers. The aim of the study was to examine how AI could reduce radiologist workload and increase cancer detection. METHODS: In this retrospective simulation study, all women diagnosed with breast cancer who attended two consecutive screening rounds were included. Healthy women were randomly sampled from the same cohort; their observations were given elevated weight to mimic a frequency of 0·7% incident cancer per screening interval. Based on the prediction score from a commercially available AI cancer detector, various cutoff points for the decision to channel women to the two new work streams were examined in terms of missed and additionally detected cancer. FINDINGS: 7364 women were included in the study sample: 547 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 6817 were healthy controls. When including 60%, 70%, or 80% of women with the lowest AI scores in the no radiologist stream, the proportion of screen-detected cancers that would have been missed were 0, 0·3% (95% CI 0·0-4·3), or 2·6% (1·1-5·4), respectively. When including 1% or 5% of women with the highest AI scores in the enhanced assessment stream, the potential additional cancer detection was 24 (12%) or 53 (27%) of 200 subsequent interval cancers, respectively, and 48 (14%) or 121 (35%) of 347 next-round screen-detected cancers, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Using a commercial AI cancer detector to triage mammograms into no radiologist assessment and enhanced assessment could potentially reduce radiologist workload by more than half, and pre-emptively detect a substantial proportion of cancers otherwise diagnosed later. FUNDING: Stockholm City Council.