Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
41 lines (34 loc) · 6.11 KB

07.conclusions.md

File metadata and controls

41 lines (34 loc) · 6.11 KB

Conclusions

Deep learning-based methods now match or surpass the previous state of the art in a diverse array of tasks in patient and disease categorization, fundamental biological study, genomics, and treatment development. Returning to our central question: given this rapid progress, has deep learning transformed the study of human disease? Though the answer is highly dependent on the specific domain and problem being addressed, we conclude that deep learning has not yet realized its transformative potential or induced a strategic inflection point. Despite its dominance over competing machine learning approaches in many of the areas reviewed here and quantitative improvements in predictive performance, deep learning has not yet definitively "solved" these problems.

As an analogy, consider recent progress in conversational speech recognition. Since 2009 there have been drastic performance improvements with error rates dropping from more than 20% to less than 6% [@tag:Speech_recognition] and finally approaching or exceeding human performance in the past year [@arxiv:1610.05256; @arxiv:1703.02136]. The phenomenal improvements on benchmark datasets are undeniable, but greatly reducing the error rate on these benchmarks did not fundamentally transform the domain. Widespread adoption of conversational speech technologies will require solving the problem, i.e. methods that surpass human performance, and persuading users to adopt them [@tag:Speech_recognition]. We see parallels in healthcare, where achieving the full potential of deep learning will require outstanding predictive performance as well as acceptance and adoption by biologists and clinicians. These experts will rightfully demand rigorous evidence that deep learning has impacted their respective disciplines -- elucidated new biological mechanisms and improved patient outcomes -- to be convinced that the promises of deep learning are more substantive than those of previous generations of artificial intelligence.

Some of the areas we have discussed are closer to surpassing this lofty bar than others, generally those that are more similar to the non-biomedical tasks that are now monopolized by deep learning. In medical imaging, diabetic retinopathy [@doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216], diabetic macular edema [@doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216], tuberculosis [@doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162326], and skin lesion [@doi:10.1038/nature21056] classifiers are highly accurate and comparable to clinician performance.

In other domains, perfect accuracy will not be required because deep learning will primarily prioritize experiments and assist discovery. For example, in chemical screening for drug discovery, a deep learning system that successfully identifies dozens or hundreds of target-specific, active small molecules from a massive search space would have immense practical value even if its overall precision is modest. In medical imaging, deep learning can point an expert to the most challenging cases that require manual review [@doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162326], though the risk of false negatives must be addressed. In protein structure prediction, errors in individual residue-residue contacts can be tolerated when using the contacts jointly for 3D structure modeling. Improved contact map predictions [@tag:Wang2016_protein_contact] have led to notable improvements in fold and 3D structure prediction for some of the most challenging proteins, such as membrane proteins [@arxiv:1704.07207].

Conversely, the most challenging tasks may be those in which predictions are used directly for downstream modeling or decision-making, especially in the clinic. As an example, errors in sequence variant calling will be amplified if they are used directly for GWAS. In addition, the stochasticity and complexity of biological systems implies that for some problems, for instance predicting gene regulation in disease, perfect accuracy will be unattainable.

We are witnessing deep learning models achieving human-level performance across a number of biomedical domains. However, machine learning algorithms, including deep neural networks, are also prone to mistakes that humans are much less likely to make, such as misclassification of adversarial examples [@arxiv:1312.6199; @arxiv:1412.6572], a reminder that these algorithms do not understand the semantics of the objects presented. It may be impossible to guarantee that a model is not susceptible to adversarial examples, but work in this area is continuing [@arxiv:1611.03814; @arxiv:1704.01155]. Cooperation between human experts and deep learning algorithms addresses many of these challenges and can achieve better performance than either individually [@arxiv:1606.05718]. For sample and patient classification tasks, we expect deep learning methods to augment clinicians and biomedical researchers.

We are optimistic about the future of deep learning in biology and medicine. It is by no means inevitable that deep learning will revolutionize these domains, but given how rapidly the field is evolving, we are confident that its full potential in biomedicine has not been explored. We have highlighted numerous challenges beyond improving training and predictive accuracy, such as preserving patient privacy and interpreting models. Ongoing research has begun to address these problems and shown that they are not insurmountable. Deep learning offers the flexibility to model data in its most natural form, for example, longer DNA sequences instead of k-mers for transcription factor binding prediction and molecular graphs instead of pre-computed bit vectors for drug discovery. These flexible input feature representations have spurred creative modeling approaches that would be infeasible with other machine learning techniques. Unsupervised methods are currently less-developed than their supervised counterparts, but they may have the most potential because of how expensive and time-consuming it is to label large amounts of biomedical data. If future deep learning algorithms can summarize very large collections of input data into interpretable models that spur scientists to ask questions that they did not know how to ask, it will be clear that deep learning has transformed biology and medicine.