Biomarker Analysis Apparatus Using Multi-Model Inference for Tumor Site Determination

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current liquid biopsy technologies face challenges in accurately determining tumor incidence sites, often leading to false determinations and increased patient load due to repeated detailed examinations, as existing models may incorrectly identify tumor sites with high probabilities.

Innovation Solution

A medical information processing apparatus that utilizes a series of trained models (zeroth, first, second, and third determination models) to infer disease types based on biomarker data, with the second and third models adjusting for potential false determinations by excluding specific disease-type elements or modifying biomarker data to improve accuracy and reduce unnecessary examinations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If a single trained model is used to determine disease type based on biomarker data, then the determination process is simple and quick, but the accuracy is low leading to false determinations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedisease type determination accuracyVSAvoidmodel system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The determination system is segmented into multiple specialized models: a zeroth model for initial determination and first/third models for re-determination after defying results. Each model handles specific scenarios, dividing the complex determination task into manageable segments that collectively improve accuracy while maintaining operational simplicity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameter of model selection based on the determination flow state. Different models are activated depending on whether it's the initial determination or a re-determination after a defying result, optimizing accuracy for each specific situation rather than using a single static model.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If multiple detailed examinations are performed to verify tumor incidence sites, then the accuracy of diagnosis is improved, but the physical and financial load on patients increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvediagnosis reliabilityVSAvoidpatient burden
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary filtering through the zeroth model to identify high-probability tumor incidence sites before detailed examinations are conducted. By pre-screening and prioritizing likely candidates, the system reduces the number of detailed examinations needed while maintaining high diagnostic reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback from examination results to trigger re-determination processes. When examination results defy the initial determination, the system automatically initiates a re-determination flow with specialized models, ensuring reliability only when necessary rather than through routine repeated examinations for all patients.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If the examination system performs comprehensive analysis of all possible disease types, then the coverage of potential diagnoses is complete, but the time and resources required increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedisease type coverageVSAvoiddetermination efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The comprehensive analysis is segmented into hierarchical stages: the zeroth model provides broad initial coverage of multiple disease types, then the first and third models focus re-determination on specific defied disease types. This segmentation maintains comprehensive coverage capability while improving efficiency by concentrating detailed analysis only where needed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs partial analysis comprehensively at the initial stage through the zeroth model, then applies excessive action (re-determination) only partially to cases with defying results. This selective application of comprehensive analysis maintains overall efficiency while ensuring thoroughness for uncertain cases.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS20230260653A1Medical information processing apparatus and computer program
Publication Date: 2023.08.17 CANON KK
  • US20230260653A1 patent drawing
  • US20230260653A1 patent drawing
  • US20230260653A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A medical information processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry acquires an examination value of a biomarker collected from an examination target subject; determines a first disease type based on an inference result of a first trained model, the inference result being obtained by inputting the acquired examination value to the first trained model, the first trained model being configured to infer the first disease type of an affected disease upon inputting of the examination value; receives input of an examination result related to the first disease type of the subject and obtained through examination; and determines, when the examination result of the subject defies the first disease type, a second disease type of the disease with which the subject is potentially affected by using a second trained model in accordance with the defied first disease type.