Back to Authors

Dash, Rajesh

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2499-6389

Mayo Clinic

Department of Pathology, Duke Health, Durham, North Carolina (Dash)

Citations 2

Introduction to Generative Artificial Intelligence: Contextualizing the Future
Singh, Rajendra, Kim, Ji Yeon , Glassy, Eric F., Dash, Rajesh , Brodsky, Victor, Seheult, Jansen N. , Baca, Monica E. de , Gu, Qiangqiang , Hoekstra, Shannon, Pritt, Bobbi S. , Seheult, Jansen, Seheult, Jansen N , Pritt, Bobbi S , Singh, Rajendra, Dash, Rajesh C.

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | December 4, 2024 | Volume: 149 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 112-122

10.5858/arpa.2024-0221-ra Get It

Context.— Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is a promising new technology with the potential to transform communication and workflows in health care and pathology. Although new technologies offer advantages, they also come with risks that users, particularly early adopters, must recognize. Given the fast pace of GAI developments, pathologists may find it challenging to stay current with the terminology, technical underpinnings, and latest advancements. Building this knowledge base will enable pathologists to grasp the potential risks and impacts that GAI may have on the future practice of pathology. Objective.— To present key elements of GAI development, evaluation, and implementation in a way that is accessible to pathologists and relevant to laboratory applications. Data Sources.— Information was gathered from recent studies and reviews from PubMed and arXiv. Conclusions.— GAI offers many potential benefits for practicing pathologists. However, the use of GAI in clinical practice requires rigorous oversight and continuous refinement to fully realize its potential and mitigate inherent risks. The performance of GAI is highly dependent on the quality and diversity of the training and fine-tuning data, which can also propagate biases if not carefully managed. Ethical concerns, particularly regarding patient privacy and autonomy, must be addressed to ensure responsible use. By harnessing these emergent technologies, pathologists will be well placed to continue forward as leaders in diagnostic medicine.
Recommendations for Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning in Pathology: A Concept Paper From the College of American Pathologists
Hanna, Matthew G. , Zarella, Mark D. , Dash, Rajesh , Furtado, Larissa V. , Stram, Michelle , Hassell, Lewis , Mays, Alex, Sirintrapun, Joseph S. , Evans, Andrew, Glassy, Eric F., Singh, Rajendra, Souers, Rhona J., Baca, Monica E. de , Seheult, Jansen N. , Zarella, Mark, Seheult, Jansen N , Stram, Michelle N , Olson, Niels H. , Dash, Rajesh C., Herrmann, Markus D. , Raciti, Patricia M. , Mays, Alex, Pantanowitz, Liron , Krishnamurthy, Savitri , Parwani, Anil Vasdev , Lujan, Giovanni Mario , Bui, Marilyn M. , Singh, Rajendra

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | December 2, 2023 | Volume: 148 | Issue: 10 | Pages: e335-e361

10.5858/arpa.2023-0042-cp Get It

Context.— Machine learning applications in the pathology clinical domain are emerging rapidly. As decision support systems continue to mature, laboratories will increasingly need guidance to evaluate their performance in clinical practice. Currently there are no formal guidelines to assist pathology laboratories in verification and/or validation of such systems. These recommendations are being proposed for the evaluation of machine learning systems in the clinical practice of pathology. Objective.— To propose recommendations for performance evaluation of in vitro diagnostic tests on patient samples that incorporate machine learning as part of the preanalytical, analytical, or postanalytical phases of the laboratory workflow. Topics described include considerations for machine learning model evaluation including risk assessment, predeployment requirements, data sourcing and curation, verification and validation, change control management, human-computer interaction, practitioner training, and competency evaluation. Data Sources.— An expert panel performed a review of the literature, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidance, and laboratory and government regulatory frameworks. Conclusions.— Review of the literature and existing documents enabled the development of proposed recommendations. This white paper pertains to performance evaluation of machine learning systems intended to be implemented for clinical patient testing. Further studies with real-world clinical data are encouraged to support these proposed recommendations. Performance evaluation of machine learning models is critical to verification and/or validation of in vitro diagnostic tests using machine learning intended for clinical practice.