skwb

I did my PhD funded for 3 years off of NIH and the remaining year and so off of corporate research grants. I really valued the fact that I was working on an industrial project, and could see it come to life with real funding and real backing.

The critical part imho will be allowing for enough independence in research, and that the time isn't just wasted filling in remedial RAs pushing pipettes around. Real safeguards will be needed, likely overseen by the PI and committee.

I genuinely hope it works and helps industry "figure out" that R&D is more than just simply productizing over the next quarter.

Very interesting! Is there any consideration to making a navidrome plugin?

Since getting laid off in May and failing to find any jobs for ML in healthcare, I am working with a friend I met during my MPH to start a boutique consultancy to help hospitals deploy AI / health technology.

The HackerNews hug of death

Yes but you have: 1. specific explicit training and certifications 2. someone to yell at and who can be fired for non-performance

It's hard to describe, but it's felt like LLMs have completely sucked the entire energy out of computer vision. Like... I know CVPR still happens and there's great research that comes out of it, but almost every single job posting in ML is about LLMs to do this and that to the detriment of computer vision.

I'm a avid (hobbyist) photographer and I've noticed a TON of genuinely good 3rd party lenses (primarily Sigma and Tamron) and even 'fine' lenses at rock bottom prices (Viltrox, 7Artisans, TTArtisans, etc) for like $250. The conventional wisdom I've heard is that computer aided design has totally revolutionized this field.

I can only hope that projects like these help build better lenses for the future.

The fact that courts do strike down admins on violating the APA does, in fact, make it illegal.

> Also, what would be illegal about the change?

At the *very* least you should be following the administrative rules act (requiring you to solicit 45 days for comments by effected parties) before making such a dramatic change in policy.

Courts absolutely love striking down EOs (of both Dems and Reps Admins) when they should have been following the administrative rules act.

Completely off topic to the actual article - but...

I really get irked a lot by seeing (overly obvious) ai generated images being used for stock photos. One of the reasons my wife and I still subscribe to a couple of newspapers is that the photography helps bring to life the story being told. Why where these photos taken and how do they impact the story. You don't get that same visceral emotional reaction with low quality cartoon images.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying necessarily, but a lot of people are conflating my statement of IRB exemption with having an explicit IRB authorization. I guess more to my point is people seem to be failing to understand the role of retrospective research (and I will easily concede that different institutions have different legal interpretations) and how it's an important part of research. Don't get me wrong, you absolutely still have regulations about what you can and cannot do with that data, but saying you need an IRB for everything doesn't match the reality that I've seen first hand.

That said, there's plenty of buying and selling of radiological images for industry development on the second hand market. Now where the line of "research" vs. "industrial" work is, well that's something I would leave to legal council. But as you said any sort of "altering" of clinical outcomes is a clear IRB is required zone like DL based recon.

I have published multiple papers in peer review journals where we were not covered by IRBs. That is not to say other research ethics standards don't exist, but that IRBs are simply one portion of the healthcare research regulations.

I've worked in MRI AI both in academic and non-academic centers, including technology that has received 510K clearance.

I admit it sounds pedantic, but I'm not discussing IRB *exemptions* that are sometimes required by an institution nor am I discussing BAAs. I was specifically talking about the specific IRB applications (which I've submitted and signed before) that the blog author was talking about. Yes, HIPAA and other state and local regulations also govern what you can and cannot do with the data, but that's not what I argued.

Sorta off topic but the FDA doesn't care so much about SAR unless you're directly programming the MR machine's pulse sequence. If you're just doing quantification of some brain structure for monitoring a biomarker, they're primarily concerned if your product 1) matches an existing prerequisite and 2) functionality that your product achieves performance that you say it does. That is why the marketing around most of the early DL / AI based radiology startups were focused on language for "study prioritization" rather than more specific claims.

I just pointed out the numerous exemptions to IRBs for research. People can literally make a research career and never touch IRBs.

The point I'm trying to make is that the blog is so narrowly defined that it doesn't match the reality of clinical research.

I mean tons of retrospective studies are literally "IRB exempt" (and highlighted as such in their methods) where no explicit consent is required or needed. Physicians doing case reviews don't need consent of the patient this work. Doing retrospective analyses for defining clinical phenotypes on patient data that has been aggregated isn't needed either. Collecting clinical MRIs to do deep learning doesn't require an IRB.

IRBs are only REALLY required when you are intervening in patient care or pose some theoretical risk to a human.

Some institutions still want you to submit approval for institutional data, but as a non-lawyer it seems that's much more of a CYA policy.