Raymond H. Mak

IV
h-index2
3papers
38citations
Novelty43%
AI Score40

3 Papers

32.5IVJan 15, 2025Code
Vision Foundation Models for Computed Tomography

Suraj Pai, Ibrahim Hadzic, Dennis Bontempi et al.

Foundation models (FMs) have shown transformative potential in radiology by performing diverse, complex tasks across imaging modalities. Here, we developed CT-FM, a large-scale 3D image-based pre-trained model designed explicitly for various radiological tasks. CT-FM was pre-trained using 148,000 computed tomography (CT) scans from the Imaging Data Commons through label-agnostic contrastive learning. We evaluated CT-FM across four categories of tasks, namely, whole-body and tumor segmentation, head CT triage, medical image retrieval, and semantic understanding, showing superior performance against state-of-the-art models. Beyond quantitative success, CT-FM demonstrated the ability to cluster regions anatomically and identify similar anatomical and structural concepts across scans. Furthermore, it remained robust across test-retest settings and indicated reasonable salient regions attached to its embeddings. This study demonstrates the value of large-scale medical imaging foundation models and by open-sourcing the model weights, code, and data, aims to support more adaptable, reliable, and interpretable AI solutions in radiology.

3.3AISep 30, 2025
Beyond the Algorithm: A Field Guide to Deploying AI Agents in Clinical Practice

Jack Gallifant, Katherine C. Kellogg, Matt Butler et al.

Large language models (LLMs) integrated into agent-driven workflows hold immense promise for healthcare, yet a significant gap exists between their potential and practical implementation within clinical settings. To address this, we present a practitioner-oriented field manual for deploying generative agents that use electronic health record (EHR) data. This guide is informed by our experience deploying the "irAE-Agent", an automated system to detect immune-related adverse events from clinical notes at Mass General Brigham, and by structured interviews with 20 clinicians, engineers, and informatics leaders involved in the project. Our analysis reveals a critical misalignment in clinical AI development: less than 20% of our effort was dedicated to prompt engineering and model development, while over 80% was consumed by the sociotechnical work of implementation. We distill this effort into five "heavy lifts": data integration, model validation, ensuring economic value, managing system drift, and governance. By providing actionable solutions for each of these challenges, this field manual shifts the focus from algorithmic development to the essential infrastructure and implementation work required to bridge the "valley of death" and successfully translate generative AI from pilot projects into routine clinical care.

5.1IVJun 17, 2025
Foundation Artificial Intelligence Models for Health Recognition Using Face Photographs (FAHR-Face)

Fridolin Haugg, Grace Lee, John He et al.

Background: Facial appearance offers a noninvasive window into health. We built FAHR-Face, a foundation model trained on >40 million facial images and fine-tuned it for two distinct tasks: biological age estimation (FAHR-FaceAge) and survival risk prediction (FAHR-FaceSurvival). Methods: FAHR-FaceAge underwent a two-stage, age-balanced fine-tuning on 749,935 public images; FAHR-FaceSurvival was fine-tuned on 34,389 photos of cancer patients. Model robustness (cosmetic surgery, makeup, pose, lighting) and independence (saliency mapping) was tested extensively. Both models were clinically tested in two independent cancer patient datasets with survival analyzed by multivariable Cox models and adjusted for clinical prognostic factors. Findings: For age estimation, FAHR-FaceAge had the lowest mean absolute error of 5.1 years on public datasets, outperforming benchmark models and maintaining accuracy across the full human lifespan. In cancer patients, FAHR-FaceAge outperformed a prior facial age estimation model in survival prognostication. FAHR-FaceSurvival demonstrated robust prediction of mortality, and the highest-risk quartile had more than triple the mortality of the lowest (adjusted hazard ratio 3.22; P<0.001). These findings were validated in the independent cohort and both models showed generalizability across age, sex, race and cancer subgroups. The two algorithms provided distinct, complementary prognostic information; saliency mapping revealed each model relied on distinct facial regions. The combination of FAHR-FaceAge and FAHR-FaceSurvival improved prognostic accuracy. Interpretation: A single foundation model can generate inexpensive, scalable facial biomarkers that capture both biological ageing and disease-related mortality risk. The foundation model enabled effective training using relatively small clinical datasets.