Researcher profile

Steve Langer

Steve Langer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Best Practices and Scoring System on Reviewing A.I. based Medical Imaging Papers: Part 1 Classification

With the recent advances in A.I. methodologies and their application to medical imaging, there has been an explosion of related research programs utilizing these techniques to produce state-of-the-art classification performance. Ultimately, these research programs culminate in submission of their work for consideration in peer reviewed journals. To date, the criteria for acceptance vs. rejection is often subjective; however, reproducible science requires reproducible review. The Machine Learning Education Sub-Committee of SIIM has identified a knowledge gap and a serious need to establish guidelines for reviewing these studies. Although there have been several recent papers with this goal, this present work is written from the machine learning practitioners standpoint. In this series, the committee will address the best practices to be followed in an A.I.-based study and present the required sections in terms of examples and discussion of what should be included to make the studies cohesive, reproducible, accurate, and self-contained. This first entry in the series focuses on the task of image classification. Elements such as dataset curation, data pre-processing steps, defining an appropriate reference standard, data partitioning, model architecture and training are discussed. The sections are presented as they would be detailed in a typical manuscript, with content describing the necessary information that should be included to make sure the study is of sufficient quality to be considered for publication. The goal of this series is to provide resources to not only help improve the review process for A.I.-based medical imaging papers, but to facilitate a standard for the information that is presented within all components of the research study. We hope to provide quantitative metrics in what otherwise may be a qualitative review process.

preprint2020arXiv

A Patient-Centric Dataset of Images and Metadata for Identifying Melanomas Using Clinical Context

Prior skin image datasets have not addressed patient-level information obtained from multiple skin lesions from the same patient. Though artificial intelligence classification algorithms have achieved expert-level performance in controlled studies examining single images, in practice dermatologists base their judgment holistically from multiple lesions on the same patient. The 2020 SIIM-ISIC Melanoma Classification challenge dataset described herein was constructed to address this discrepancy between prior challenges and clinical practice, providing for each image in the dataset an identifier allowing lesions from the same patient to be mapped to one another. This patient-level contextual information is frequently used by clinicians to diagnose melanoma and is especially useful in ruling out false positives in patients with many atypical nevi. The dataset represents 2,056 patients from three continents with an average of 16 lesions per patient, consisting of 33,126 dermoscopic images and 584 histopathologically confirmed melanomas compared with benign melanoma mimickers.