Invi Grid

invigrid

India Draws International Business from Europe While Expanding into Asia and the US

HackerNoon Reporter: Please tell us briefly about your  background. My name is Inti De Ceukelaire - I’m a 26 year old hacker from Belgium. I’ve always enjoyed breaking stuff, but I was too well-raised to become a cybercriminal. And now I’m proud to coach Europe’s largest crowd of ethical hackers, helping companies to improve their security on a daily basis! What's your startup called? And in a sentence or two, what does it do? Intigriti is an ethical hacking platform that matches companies with security researchers across the globe. We challenge our community of 35.000 researchers to ethically hack our customers, and in exchange, they get paid “bug bounties” worth up to €50.000 for every vulnerability they may find! Unlike the name may suggest, Intigriti is not derived from my name “Inti” - the name existed well before I joined. We have a standing world record of people misspelling Intigriti (intigrity, integrity, you name it, we heard it!). What is the origin story? Intigriti was originally founded by my business partner Stijn Jans in 2016. Gaining local recognition in the cybersecurity field while working for the Belgian press, I noticed the press release simply because Intigriti sounded like my name - so I sent Stijn a message telling him he better make this company a success because people will inevitably think I’m the one behind it (to this day, a lot of people think I am the original founder because of the name). Then I found out he was living a few blocks away from me and we met in a bar later that night. I ended up signing a contract as co-founder that very night and quit my job at the Belgian public broadcast company. What a company name can do! What do you love about your team, and why are you the ones to solve this problem? Intigriti is a platform for hackers - built by hackers. The hacker culture is present throughout all layers of our organization, and we try to involve community members as much as possible when trying to solve tricky problems. We’re all very passionate people trying to create a sustainable space for people just like us. If you weren’t building your startup, what would you be doing? I would spend even more time hacking! There is nothing as fulfilling and exciting as helping to make the internet a safer space. There’s always more research to be done, more techniques to explore and more cybercriminals to stop. At the moment, how do you measure success? What are your core metrics? Intigriti has two main components: the ethical hacker community and our customers - the companies they hack on. In order for us to succeed, we need to invest in both sides of the table. Balance is key: you can’t have have a small crowd for a large amount of customers, but on the other hand, you need to make sure you have enough interesting companies to entertain your crowd and help them become successful. We’ll look at customer and security researcher acquisition rate, financials like ARR/MRR, but also the value we provide: what vulnerabilities are found? How well does our team of ethical hackers outperform other solutions? What’s the average severity and complexity of vulnerabilities found? What’s most exciting about your traction to date? Apart from the incredible 500% growth we’ve had, the best part of our journey is the tangible impact we have on people’s lives. From our customers’ perspective, our ethical hacker community was able to prevent billions worth of cybersecurity breaches. More than 70% of our customers receive a high to critical vulnerability within the first hours after launching their program with us, many of which had several security tests from well-established companies in the past. On the ethical hacker’s side, we’re enabling people to help contribute to the security of hundreds of companies across the globe, hone their skills and earn money where they want, whenever they want - regardless of their gender, race, or experience. What technologies are you currently most excited about, and most worried about? And why? I can be both excited and worried about artificial intelligence. I believe AI will help us with detecting and resolving vulnerabilities before malicious actors can find them, but I’m also worried about how they may pose additional risks as attackers may implement it into their workflows. Offensive cybersecurity is a cat and mouse game, and involving an artificially intelligent battle force in the fight is a thrilling challenge! What drew you to get published on HackerNoon? What do you like most about our platform? It probably won’t surprise you that I’m in love with the name. The positive usage of the word ‘hacker’ is something we need to encourage - the hacker community is the greatest, most welcoming family you can imagine. What advice would you give to the 21-year-old version of yourself? I wish I had learnt about the “ ” theory earlier in life. I used to worry a lot about things I had no control over and could not do anything about. Now, I try to approach each problem that comes up from the positive side: worrying about stuff never fixed anything! circle of influence What is something surprising you've learned this year that your contemporaries would benefit from knowing? Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” does not prove the strongest animals survive… the most adaptive do! This year, I’ve come to realize this also applies to businesses: the coronavirus pandemic was a challenge to all of us, but despite the uncertain times, a lot of agile companies managed to stay afloat or even skyrocket! Every challenge is also an opportunity to explore additional business services and strategies you may not think of sitting comfortably. Embrace it! Intigriti was nominated as in Startups of the Year hosted by HackerNoon. Go vote for them! one of the best startups in Antwerp

On Making The Internet A Safer Space: Inti De Ceukelaire, Head Of Hackers At Intigriti

How Ethereum Layer 2 Solutions Have Evolved: From Rollups to zkEVM

How To Find The Best LLM For Your Project

The Next Steps for Primordial Black Hole Research

Microarchitectural Security of AWS Firecracker VMM: Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References

AWS ফায়ারক্র্যাকার VMM এর মাইক্রোআর্কিটেকচারাল নিরাপত্তা: উপসংহার, স্বীকৃতি এবং রেফারেন্স

Mikroarchitektonische Sicherheit von AWS Firecracker VMM: Fazit, Danksagungen und Referenzen

Seguridad microarquitectónica de AWS Firecracker VMM: conclusión, reconocimientos y referencias

Sécurité microarchitecturale d'AWS Firecracker VMM : conclusion, remerciements et références

AWS फायरक्रैकर VMM की माइक्रोआर्किटेक्चरल सुरक्षा: निष्कर्ष, आभार और संदर्भ

AWS Firecracker VMM のマイクロアーキテクチャセキュリティ: 結論、謝辞、参考文献

AWS Firecracker VMM의 마이크로아키텍처 보안: 결론, 승인 및 참조

Segurança microarquitetônica do AWS Firecracker VMM: conclusão, agradecimentos e referências

Микроархитектурная безопасность AWS Firecracker VMM: заключение, благодарности и ссылки

AWS Firecracker VMM'nin Mikro Mimari Güvenliği: Sonuç, Teşekkür ve Referanslar

Bảo mật vi kiến trúc của AWS Firecracker VMM: Kết luận, Lời cảm ơn và Tài liệu tham khảo

AWS Firecracker VMM 的微架构安全性：结论、致谢和参考文献

Deep Neural Networks to Detect and Quantify Lymphoma Lesions: Results

ডিপ নিউরাল নেটওয়ার্ক লিম্ফোমা ক্ষত সনাক্ত এবং পরিমাপ করতে: ফলাফল

Tiefe neuronale Netzwerke zur Erkennung und Quantifizierung von Lymphomläsionen: Ergebnisse

Redes neuronales profundas para detectar y cuantificar lesiones de linfoma: resultados

Réseaux de neurones profonds pour détecter et quantifier les lésions de lymphome : résultats

लिम्फोमा घावों का पता लगाने और मात्रा निर्धारित करने के लिए डीप न्यूरल नेटवर्क: परिणाम

リンパ腫病変を検出し定量化するディープニューラルネットワーク：結果

림프종 병변을 탐지하고 정량화하기 위한 심층 신경망: 결과

Redes Neurais Profundas para Detectar e Quantificar Lesões de Linfoma: Resultados

Глубокие нейронные сети для обнаружения и количественной оценки поражений лимфомой: результаты

Lenfoma Lezyonlarını Tespit Etmek ve Ölçmek İçin Derin Sinir Ağları: Sonuçlar

Mạng lưới thần kinh sâu để phát hiện và định lượng tổn thương ung thư hạch: Kết quả

深度神经网络检测和量化淋巴瘤病变：结果

Deep Neural Networks to Detect and Quantify Lymphoma Lesions: Materials and Methods

ডিপ নিউরাল নেটওয়ার্ক লিম্ফোমা ক্ষত সনাক্ত এবং পরিমাপ করার জন্য: উপাদান এবং পদ্ধতি

Tiefe neuronale Netzwerke zur Erkennung und Quantifizierung von Lymphomläsionen: Materialien und Methoden

Redes neuronales profundas para detectar y cuantificar lesiones de linfoma: materiales y métodos

Réseaux de neurones profonds pour détecter et quantifier les lésions de lymphome : matériels et méthodes

लिम्फोमा घावों का पता लगाने और मात्रा निर्धारित करने के लिए डीप न्यूरल नेटवर्क: सामग्री और विधियाँ

リンパ腫病変を検出し定量化するディープニューラルネットワーク：材料と方法

림프종 병변을 검출하고 정량화하기 위한 심층 신경망: 재료 및 방법

Redes Neurais Profundas para Detectar e Quantificar Lesões de Linfoma: Materiais e Métodos

Глубокие нейронные сети для обнаружения и количественной оценки поражений лимфомой: материалы и методы

Lenfoma Lezyonlarını Tespit Etmek ve Ölçmek İçin Derin Sinir Ağları: Malzemeler ve Yöntemler

Mạng lưới thần kinh sâu để phát hiện và định lượng tổn thương ung thư hạch: Vật liệu và phương pháp

深度神经网络检测和量化淋巴瘤病变：材料和方法

Authors:
(1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com);
(2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea;
(5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Table of Links Abstract and Intro
Related Work
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion and References VI. CONCLUSION In this study, we assessed various neural network architectures for automating lymphoma lesion segmentation in PET/CT images across multiple datasets. We examined the reproducibility of lesion measures, revealing differences among networks, highlighting their suitability for specific clinical uses. Additionally, we introduced three lesion detection criteria to assess network performance at a per-lesion level, emphasizing their clinical relevance. Lastly, we discussed challenges related to ground truth consistency and stressed the importance of having well-defined protocol for segmentation. This work provides valuable insights into deep learning’s potentials and limitations in lymphoma lesion segmentation and emphasizes the need for standardized annotation practices to enhance research validity and clinical applications. REFERENCES [1] S. F. Barrington et al. “FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas”. In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 44.1 (Aug. 2017), pp. 97–110. ISSN: 1619- 7089. [2] K. Okuyucu et al. “Prognosis estimation under the light of metabolic tumor parameters on initial FDG-PET/CT in patients with primary extranodal lymphoma”. en. In: Radiol. Oncol. 50.4 (Dec. 2016), pp. 360–369. [3] N. Wu et al. “Deep Neural Networks Improve Radiologists’ Performance in Breast Cancer Screening”. In: IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 39.4 (2020), pp. 1184–1194. [4] C. Yuan et al. “Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma segmentation in PET-CT images via hybrid learning for feature fusion”. In: Medical Physics 48.7 (2021), pp. 3665– 3678. [5] H. Hu et al. “Lymphoma Segmentation in PET Images Based on Multi-view and Conv3D Fusion Strategy”. In: 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). 2020, pp. 1197–1200. [6] H. Li et al. “DenseX-Net: An End-to-End Model for Lymphoma Segmentation in Whole-Body PET/CT Images”. In: IEEE Access 8 (2020), pp. 8004–8018. [7] L. Liu et al. “Improved Multi-modal Patch Based Lymphoma Segmentation with Negative Sample Augmentation and Label Guidance on PET/CT Scans”. In: Multiscale Multimodal Medical Imaging. Ed. by X. Li et al. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 121–129. ISBN: 978-3-031-18814-5. [8] C. S. Constantino et al. “Evaluation of Semiautomatic and Deep Learning–Based Fully Automatic Segmentation Methods on [18F]FDG PET/CT Images from Patients with Lymphoma: Influence on Tumor Characterization”. In: Journal of Digital Imaging 36.4 (Aug. 2023), pp. 1864–1876. ISSN: 1618-727X. [9] A. J. Weisman et al. “Comparison of 11 automated PET segmentation methods in lymphoma”. English. In: Physics in medicine & biology 65.23 (2020), pp. 235019–235019. [10] A. J. Weisman et al. “Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated PET/CT Detection of Diseased Lymph Node Burden in Patients with Lymphoma”. In: Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2.5 (2020), e200016. [11] C. Jiang et al. “Deep learning–based tumour segmentation and total metabolic tumour volume prediction in the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in 3D FDG-PET images”. In: European Radiology 32.7 (July 2022), pp. 4801–4812. ISSN: 1432-1084. [12] P. Blanc-Durand et al. “Fully automatic segmentation of diffuse large B cell lymphoma lesions on 3D FDGPET/CT for total metabolic tumour volume prediction using a convolutional neural network.” In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48.5 (May 2021), pp. 1362–1370. ISSN: 1619-7089. [13] S. Ahamed et al. “A U-Net Convolutional Neural Network with Multiclass Dice Loss for Automated Segmentation of Tumors and Lymph Nodes from Head and Neck Cancer PET/CT Images”. In: Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation and Outcome Prediction. Ed. by V. Andrearczyk et al. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 94–106. ISBN: 978-3-031-27420-6. [14] S. Gatidis et al. “A whole-body FDG-PET/CT Dataset with manually annotated Tumor Lesions”. In: Scientific Data 9.1 (Oct. 2022), p. 601. ISSN: 2052-4463. [15] M. Pop et al. “Left-Ventricle Quantification Using Residual U-Net”. English. In: vol. 11395. Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. Atrial Segmentation and LV Quantification Challenges. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2019, pp. 371–380. ISBN: 0302-9743. [16] A. Myronenko. “3D MRI Brain Tumor Segmentation Using Autoencoder Regularization”. English. In: Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 311–320. ISBN: 0302-9743. [17] F. Isensee et al. “nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation”. In: Nature Methods 18.2 (Dec. 2020), pp. 203–211. [18] A. Hatamizadeh et al. “Swin UNETR: Swin Transformers for Semantic Segmentation of Brain Tumors in MRI Images”. English. In: (2022). [19] M. J. Cardoso et al. MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare. 2022. arXiv: 2211. 02701 [cs.LG]. [20] S. Ahamed et al. “Towards enhanced lesion segmentation using a 3D neural network trained on multiresolution cropped patches of lymphoma PET images”. In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64.supplement 1 (2023), P1360–P1360. ISSN: 0161-5505. [21] J. L. Fleiss. “Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters”. English. In: Psychological bulletin 76.5 (1971), pp. 378–382. [22] A. K. Jha et al. “Nuclear Medicine and artificial intelligence: Best practices for evaluation (the RELAINCE guidelines)”. en. In: J. Nucl. Med. 63.9 (Sept. 2022), pp. 1288–1299. [23] N. Hasani et al. “Artificial Intelligence in Lymphoma PET Imaging: A Scoping Review (Current Trends and Future Directions)”. In: PET clinics 17.1 (Jan. 1), pp. 145–174. ISSN: 1556-8598. [24] S. K. Warfield et al. “Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation”. en. In: IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 23.7 (July 2004), pp. 903–921. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com); (2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; (5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Authors: Authors: (1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com); (2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; (5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Table of Links Abstract and Intro Related Work Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion and References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro Related Work Related Work Materials and Methods Materials and Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion Conclusion and References Conclusion and References VI. CONCLUSION In this study, we assessed various neural network architectures for automating lymphoma lesion segmentation in PET/CT images across multiple datasets. We examined the reproducibility of lesion measures, revealing differences among networks, highlighting their suitability for specific clinical uses. Additionally, we introduced three lesion detection criteria to assess network performance at a per-lesion level, emphasizing their clinical relevance. Lastly, we discussed challenges related to ground truth consistency and stressed the importance of having well-defined protocol for segmentation. This work provides valuable insights into deep learning’s potentials and limitations in lymphoma lesion segmentation and emphasizes the need for standardized annotation practices to enhance research validity and clinical applications. REFERENCES [1] S. F. Barrington et al. “FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas”. In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 44.1 (Aug. 2017), pp. 97–110. ISSN: 1619- 7089. [2] K. Okuyucu et al. “Prognosis estimation under the light of metabolic tumor parameters on initial FDG-PET/CT in patients with primary extranodal lymphoma”. en. In: Radiol. Oncol. 50.4 (Dec. 2016), pp. 360–369. [3] N. Wu et al. “Deep Neural Networks Improve Radiologists’ Performance in Breast Cancer Screening”. In: IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 39.4 (2020), pp. 1184–1194. [4] C. Yuan et al. “Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma segmentation in PET-CT images via hybrid learning for feature fusion”. In: Medical Physics 48.7 (2021), pp. 3665– 3678. [5] H. Hu et al. “Lymphoma Segmentation in PET Images Based on Multi-view and Conv3D Fusion Strategy”. In: 2020 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). 2020, pp. 1197–1200. [6] H. Li et al. “DenseX-Net: An End-to-End Model for Lymphoma Segmentation in Whole-Body PET/CT Images”. In: IEEE Access 8 (2020), pp. 8004–8018. [7] L. Liu et al. “Improved Multi-modal Patch Based Lymphoma Segmentation with Negative Sample Augmentation and Label Guidance on PET/CT Scans”. In: Multiscale Multimodal Medical Imaging. Ed. by X. Li et al. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 121–129. ISBN: 978-3-031-18814-5. [8] C. S. Constantino et al. “Evaluation of Semiautomatic and Deep Learning–Based Fully Automatic Segmentation Methods on [18F]FDG PET/CT Images from Patients with Lymphoma: Influence on Tumor Characterization”. In: Journal of Digital Imaging 36.4 (Aug. 2023), pp. 1864–1876. ISSN: 1618-727X. [9] A. J. Weisman et al. “Comparison of 11 automated PET segmentation methods in lymphoma”. English. In: Physics in medicine & biology 65.23 (2020), pp. 235019–235019. [10] A. J. Weisman et al. “Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated PET/CT Detection of Diseased Lymph Node Burden in Patients with Lymphoma”. In: Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2.5 (2020), e200016. [11] C. Jiang et al. “Deep learning–based tumour segmentation and total metabolic tumour volume prediction in the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in 3D FDG-PET images”. In: European Radiology 32.7 (July 2022), pp. 4801–4812. ISSN: 1432-1084. [12] P. Blanc-Durand et al. “Fully automatic segmentation of diffuse large B cell lymphoma lesions on 3D FDGPET/CT for total metabolic tumour volume prediction using a convolutional neural network.” In: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48.5 (May 2021), pp. 1362–1370. ISSN: 1619-7089. [13] S. Ahamed et al. “A U-Net Convolutional Neural Network with Multiclass Dice Loss for Automated Segmentation of Tumors and Lymph Nodes from Head and Neck Cancer PET/CT Images”. In: Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation and Outcome Prediction. Ed. by V. Andrearczyk et al. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 94–106. ISBN: 978-3-031-27420-6. [14] S. Gatidis et al. “A whole-body FDG-PET/CT Dataset with manually annotated Tumor Lesions”. In: Scientific Data 9.1 (Oct. 2022), p. 601. ISSN: 2052-4463. [15] M. Pop et al. “Left-Ventricle Quantification Using Residual U-Net”. English. In: vol. 11395. Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. Atrial Segmentation and LV Quantification Challenges. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, 2019, pp. 371–380. ISBN: 0302-9743. [16] A. Myronenko. “3D MRI Brain Tumor Segmentation Using Autoencoder Regularization”. English. In: Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 311–320. ISBN: 0302-9743. [17] F. Isensee et al. “nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation”. In: Nature Methods 18.2 (Dec. 2020), pp. 203–211. [18] A. Hatamizadeh et al. “Swin UNETR: Swin Transformers for Semantic Segmentation of Brain Tumors in MRI Images”. English. In: (2022). [19] M. J. Cardoso et al. MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare. 2022. arXiv: 2211. 02701 [cs.LG]. [20] S. Ahamed et al. “Towards enhanced lesion segmentation using a 3D neural network trained on multiresolution cropped patches of lymphoma PET images”. In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64.supplement 1 (2023), P1360–P1360. ISSN: 0161-5505. [21] J. L. Fleiss. “Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters”. English. In: Psychological bulletin 76.5 (1971), pp. 378–382. [22] A. K. Jha et al. “Nuclear Medicine and artificial intelligence: Best practices for evaluation (the RELAINCE guidelines)”. en. In: J. Nucl. Med. 63.9 (Sept. 2022), pp. 1288–1299. [23] N. Hasani et al. “Artificial Intelligence in Lymphoma PET Imaging: A Scoping Review (Current Trends and Future Directions)”. In: PET clinics 17.1 (Jan. 1), pp. 145–174. ISSN: 1556-8598. [24] S. K. Warfield et al. “Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation”. en. In: IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 23.7 (July 2004), pp. 903–921. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv available on arxiv

Deep Neural Networks to Detect and Quantify Lymphoma Lesions: Conclusion and References

ডিপ নিউরাল নেটওয়ার্ক লিম্ফোমা ক্ষত সনাক্ত এবং পরিমাপ করার জন্য: উপসংহার এবং রেফারেন্স

Tiefe neuronale Netzwerke zur Erkennung und Quantifizierung von Lymphomläsionen: Schlussfolgerung und Referenzen

Redes neuronales profundas para detectar y cuantificar lesiones de linfoma: conclusiones y referencias

Réseaux de neurones profonds pour détecter et quantifier les lésions de lymphome : conclusion et références

लिम्फोमा घावों का पता लगाने और मात्रा निर्धारित करने के लिए डीप न्यूरल नेटवर्क: निष्कर्ष और संदर्भ

リンパ腫病変の検出と定量化のためのディープニューラルネットワーク：結論と参考文献

림프종 병변을 검출하고 정량화하기 위한 심층 신경망: 결론 및 참고 문헌

Redes Neurais Profundas para Detectar e Quantificar Lesões de Linfoma: Conclusão e Referências

Глубокие нейронные сети для обнаружения и количественной оценки поражений лимфомой: заключение и ссылки

Lenfoma Lezyonlarını Tespit Etmek ve Ölçmek İçin Derin Sinir Ağları: Sonuç ve Referanslar

Mạng lưới thần kinh sâu để phát hiện và định lượng tổn thương ung thư hạch: Kết luận và tài liệu tham khảo

深度神经网络检测和量化淋巴瘤病变：结论和参考文献

Authors:
(1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com);
(2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea;
(5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA;
(13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
(14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Table of Links Abstract and Intro
Related Work
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion and References II. RELATED WORK Numerous works have explored the application of deep learning methods for segmenting lymphoma in PET/CT images. Yuan et al. [4] developed a feature fusion technique to utilize the complementary information from multi-modality data. Hu et al. [5] proposed fusing a combination of 3D ResUNet trained on volumetric data and three 2D ResUNet trained on 2D slices from three orthogonal directions for enhancing segmentation performance. Li et al. [6] proposed DenseX-Net trained in an end-to-end fashion integrating supervised and unsupervised methods for lymphoma detection and segmentation. Liu et al. [7] introduced techniques such as patch-based negative sample augmentation and label guidance for training a 3D Residual-UNet for lymphoma segmentation. A major limitation of all these works was that they were developed on relatively smaller-sized datasets (less than 100 images). Moreover, most of these methods did not compare the performance of their proposed methods with other baselines or with the performance of physicians. Constantino et al. [8] compared the performances of 7 semi-automated and 2 deep learning segmentation methods, while Weisman et al. [9] compared 11 automated segmentation techniques, although both these studies were performed on smaller datasets of sizes 65 and 90 respectively. Weisman et al. [10] compared the segmentation performances of automated 3D Deep Medic method with that of physician although even this study included just 90 lymphoma cases. Except for [10], none of these studies reported model generalization on out-ofdistribution dataset (such as on data collected from different centers), limiting their robustness quantification and external validity. Jiang et al. [11] used a relatively larger dataset as compared to the above studies with 297 images to train a 3D UNet. They even performed out-of-distribution testing on 117 images collected from a different center. To the best of our knowledge, the largest lymphoma PET/CT dataset for deep learning-based lesion segmentation ever reported is the work by Blanc-Durand et al. [12] who used 639 images for model development and 94 for external testing; however, this study only used standard segmentation evaluation metrics and assessed their model’s ability for predicting accurate TMTV. Both the studies [11] and [12] are limited by the fact that their datasets exclusively consisted of patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), representing only a single subtype of lymphoma. Most of the existing studies on deep learning-based lymphoma segmentation report their performances on generic segmentation metrics such as Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection-over-union (IoU), sensitivity, etc. In the presence of large segmented lesions, very small missed lesions or small false positives do not contribute much to the DSC value. Hence, there is a need to report the volumes of false positives and false negatives. It will also be beneficial to evaluate the detection performances on a per-lesion basis (number of connected components detected vs missed), since automated detection of even a few voxels of all lesions can help physicians quickly locate the regions of interest, even if the DSC is low. Moreover, the difficulty of the segmentation/detection task is often not assessed via inter- or intra-observer agreement analysis. Our study aims to address these limitations. We trained and validated four deep neural networks on lymphoma PET/CT datasets from three cohorts, encompassing two distinct subtypes of lymphoma: DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). (i) We performed both in (images coming from same cohorts as the training/validation set) and out-of-distribution or external (images from a fourth cohort not used for training/validation) testing to evaluate the robustness of our models. (ii) We reported the performance using DSC, volumes of false positives and negatives, and evaluated the performance dependence on six different types of lesion measures. (iii) We also evaluated the ability of our networks to reproduce these ground truth lesion measures and computed networks’ error in predicting them. (iv) We proposed three types of detection criteria for our use-case and evaluate model’s performance on these metrics. (v) Finally, we evaluated the intra- and inter-observer agreement to give a measure of the difficulty of lesion segmentation task on our datasets. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com); (2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; (5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Authors: Authors: (1) Shadab Ahamed, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. He was also a Mitacs Accelerate Fellow (May 2022 - April 2023) with Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA (e-mail: shadabahamed1996@gmail.com); (2) Yixi Xu, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (3) Claire Gowdy, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (4) Joo H. O, St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; (5) Ingrid Bloise, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (6) Don Wilson, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (7) Patrick Martineau, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (8) Franc¸ois Benard, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (9) Fereshteh Yousefirizi, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (10) Rahul Dodhia, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (11) Juan M. Lavista, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (12) William B. Weeks, Microsoft AI for Good Lab, Redmond, WA, USA; (13) Carlos F. Uribe, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (14) Arman Rahmim, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Table of Links Abstract and Intro Related Work Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion and References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro Related Work Related Work Materials and Methods Materials and Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion Conclusion and References Conclusion and References II. RELATED WORK Numerous works have explored the application of deep learning methods for segmenting lymphoma in PET/CT images. Yuan et al. [4] developed a feature fusion technique to utilize the complementary information from multi-modality data. Hu et al. [5] proposed fusing a combination of 3D ResUNet trained on volumetric data and three 2D ResUNet trained on 2D slices from three orthogonal directions for enhancing segmentation performance. Li et al. [6] proposed DenseX-Net trained in an end-to-end fashion integrating supervised and unsupervised methods for lymphoma detection and segmentation. Liu et al. [7] introduced techniques such as patch-based negative sample augmentation and label guidance for training a 3D Residual-UNet for lymphoma segmentation. A major limitation of all these works was that they were developed on relatively smaller-sized datasets (less than 100 images). Moreover, most of these methods did not compare the performance of their proposed methods with other baselines or with the performance of physicians. Constantino et al. [8] compared the performances of 7 semi-automated and 2 deep learning segmentation methods, while Weisman et al. [9] compared 11 automated segmentation techniques, although both these studies were performed on smaller datasets of sizes 65 and 90 respectively. Weisman et al. [10] compared the segmentation performances of automated 3D Deep Medic method with that of physician although even this study included just 90 lymphoma cases. Except for [10], none of these studies reported model generalization on out-ofdistribution dataset (such as on data collected from different centers), limiting their robustness quantification and external validity. Jiang et al. [11] used a relatively larger dataset as compared to the above studies with 297 images to train a 3D UNet. They even performed out-of-distribution testing on 117 images collected from a different center. To the best of our knowledge, the largest lymphoma PET/CT dataset for deep learning-based lesion segmentation ever reported is the work by Blanc-Durand et al. [12] who used 639 images for model development and 94 for external testing; however, this study only used standard segmentation evaluation metrics and assessed their model’s ability for predicting accurate TMTV. Both the studies [11] and [12] are limited by the fact that their datasets exclusively consisted of patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), representing only a single subtype of lymphoma. Most of the existing studies on deep learning-based lymphoma segmentation report their performances on generic segmentation metrics such as Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), intersection-over-union (IoU), sensitivity, etc. In the presence of large segmented lesions, very small missed lesions or small false positives do not contribute much to the DSC value. Hence, there is a need to report the volumes of false positives and false negatives. It will also be beneficial to evaluate the detection performances on a per-lesion basis (number of connected components detected vs missed), since automated detection of even a few voxels of all lesions can help physicians quickly locate the regions of interest, even if the DSC is low. Moreover, the difficulty of the segmentation/detection task is often not assessed via inter- or intra-observer agreement analysis. Our study aims to address these limitations. We trained and validated four deep neural networks on lymphoma PET/CT datasets from three cohorts, encompassing two distinct subtypes of lymphoma: DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). (i) We performed both in (images coming from same cohorts as the training/validation set) and out-of-distribution or external (images from a fourth cohort not used for training/validation) testing to evaluate the robustness of our models. (ii) We reported the performance using DSC, volumes of false positives and negatives, and evaluated the performance dependence on six different types of lesion measures. (iii) We also evaluated the ability of our networks to reproduce these ground truth lesion measures and computed networks’ error in predicting them. (iv) We proposed three types of detection criteria for our use-case and evaluate model’s performance on these metrics. (v) Finally, we evaluated the intra- and inter-observer agreement to give a measure of the difficulty of lesion segmentation task on our datasets. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

Deep Neural Networks to Detect and Quantify Lymphoma Lesions: Related Work

ডিপ নিউরাল নেটওয়ার্ক লিম্ফোমা ক্ষত সনাক্ত এবং পরিমাপ করতে: সম্পর্কিত কাজ

Tiefe neuronale Netzwerke zur Erkennung und Quantifizierung von Lymphomläsionen: Verwandte Arbeiten

Redes neuronales profundas para detectar y cuantificar lesiones de linfoma: trabajo relacionado

Réseaux de neurones profonds pour détecter et quantifier les lésions de lymphome : travaux connexes

लिम्फोमा घावों का पता लगाने और उनकी मात्रा निर्धारित करने के लिए डीप न्यूरल नेटवर्क: संबंधित कार्य

リンパ腫病変の検出と定量化のためのディープニューラルネットワーク: 関連研究

림프종 병변을 탐지하고 정량화하기 위한 심층 신경망: 관련 연구

Redes Neurais Profundas para Detectar e Quantificar Lesões de Linfoma: Trabalho Relacionado

Глубокие нейронные сети для обнаружения и количественной оценки поражений лимфомой: соответствующая работа

Lenfoma Lezyonlarını Tespit ve Ölçmek İçin Derin Sinir Ağları: İlgili Çalışma

Mạng lưới thần kinh sâu để phát hiện và định lượng tổn thương ung thư hạch: Công việc liên quan

深度神经网络检测和量化淋巴瘤病变：相关工作

Stories, News & Mentions about INVIGRID

Invigrid’s Stories on HackerNoon