41–50 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
biology is not my forte but- i imagine "dark data" (with context) is always more valuable than no data.
Last time your build failed because you made a typo, did you package it up and release that version anyway?
Could someone please offer a TLDR; The article seems very clickbait and full of teases.
From the article: "In the case of the spinal cord injury data, Ayasdi’s TDA-driven approach mostly confirmed what researchers already knew: The drugs didn’t work." How this "Ayasdi" company's analysis probably works (based on "Topology based data analysis identifies a subgroup of breast cancers with a unique mutational profile and excellent survival" and the original "Mapper" paper "Topological Methods for the Analys…
We are generally not trying to lay claim to the phrase "Topological Data Analysis" and not going around suing people for using it. In fact we still support research in academia and actively publish in the field. TDA is the basis of what we do so it is the most efficient way of describing it.
Here is the actual paper: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151014/ncomms9581/full/nco... Coming from medicine I think the title of "medical breakthrough" is too generous. It's a great proof of concept but all this says is that in rats, high Bp in thoracic spinal cord injuries was associated with worse outcomes. Id like to see a follow up on human data from perioperative Bp recordings next. If it still holds true, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
biology is not my forte but- i imagine "dark data" (with context) is always more valuable than no data.
Wrong data is much much worse that no data, since it may lead you down the wrong path. Think what the false news of a Russian nuclear strike in US soil would have done during the Cold War.
you'd have to be a little stupid to head down the wrong path after someone explained clearly to you why it is in fact wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
biology is not my forte but- i imagine "dark data" (with context) is always more valuable than no data.
That's simply not true. One of the most, if not the most, common ways to fail an experiment is through contamination and there are at least a dozen different types of bacteria in the average lab that are brutally efficient at outcompeting whatever is in your sample and probably thousands more that are problematic at best. Once your sample is contaminated it is useless because the number of variables out of your contr…
The substance of the article is quite interesting, but the headline and premise--that it was a computer program and not humans who found the result--is ridiculous. The computer program did not collate and index the raw data and notes. The computer program did not choose the relevant inputs from the sum of all knowledge. And most importantly, the computer program did not write itself. Software is a tool that humans cr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
biology is not my forte but- i imagine "dark data" (with context) is always more valuable than no data.
That's simply not true. One of the most, if not the most, common ways to fail an experiment is through contamination and there are at least a dozen different types of bacteria in the average lab that are brutally efficient at outcompeting whatever is in your sample and probably thousands more that are problematic at best. Once your sample is contaminated it is useless because the number of variables out of your contr…
i'm seeing there are many more instances than i expected where failures are so systematic or negligible they are not worth sharing.
I'm a frontend developer at Ayasdi and we're hiring!!! http://www.ayasdi.com/company/careers/ Come be a part of future breakthroughs.
The substance of the article is quite interesting, but the headline and premise--that it was a computer program and not humans who found the result--is ridiculous. The computer program did not collate and index the raw data and notes. The computer program did not choose the relevant inputs from the sum of all knowledge. And most importantly, the computer program did not write itself. Software is a tool that humans cr…
Humans are there to explore the visualizations, interpret the network structures and understand the clusters and variables. The machines are intelligent too; they do the heavy work of comparing large numbers of points in a high dimensional space, factorization and searching for a way to express the data in a manner that makes it easier to uncover promising research directions and hypotheses.
Scanning this, it seems the most valuable contribution are their network visualization and exploratory tools. I think they should be proud of those and see no need to stretch so mightily to connect this to Stronger AI. As Vinge notes, "I am suggesting that we recognize that in network and interface research there is something as profound (and potential wild) as Artificial Intelligence."
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151014/ncomms9581/full/nco...
Here is the actual paper: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151014/ncomms9581/full/nco... Coming from medicine I think the title of "medical breakthrough" is too generous. It's a great proof of concept but all this says is that in rats, high Bp in thoracic spinal cord injuries was associated with worse outcomes. Id like to see a follow up on human data from perioperative Bp recordings next. If it still holds true, th…
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/neu.2014.3778
We are now looking at the hypertension relationship in humans, as well as mechanistic studies in rats.