Explaining how mutations affect AlphaFold predictions

Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence have enabled the creation of fake images and videos that appear highly realistic. According to a report published in 2022, approximately 71% of people rely on fake videos and become victims of blackmail. Moreover, these fake videos and images are used to tarnish the reputation of popular public figures. This has increased the demand for deepfake detection techniques. The accuracy of the techniques proposed in the literature so far varies with changes in fake content generation techniques. Additionally, these techniques are computationally intensive. The techniques discussed in the literature are based on convolutional neural networks, Linformer models, or transformer models for deepfake detection, each with its advantages and disadvantages. In this manuscript, a hybrid architecture combining transformer and Linformer models is proposed for deepfake detection. This architecture converts an image into patches and performs position encoding to retain spatial relationships between patches. Its encoder captures the contextual information from the input patches, and Gaussian Error Linear Unit resolves the vanishing gradient problem. The Linformer component reduces the size of the attention matrix. Thus, it reduces the execution time to half without compromising accuracy. Moreover, it utilizes the unique features of transformer and Linformer models to enhance the robustness and generalization of deepfake detection techniques. The low computational requirement and high accuracy of 98.9% increase the real-time applicability of the model, preventing blackmail and other losses to the public. The proposed hybrid model utilizes the strength of the transformer model in capturing complex patterns in data. It uses the self-attention potential of the Linformer model and reduces the computation time without compromising the accuracy. Moreover, the models were implemented on patch sizes of 6 and 11. It is evident from the obtained results that increasing the patch size improves the performance of the model. This allows the model to capture fine-grained features and learn more effectively from the same set of videos. The larger patch size also enables the model to better preserve spatial details, which contributes to improved feature extraction.

The variability of solar and wind energy due to weather fluctuations poses significant problems to the stability of the energy system and the utilization of renewable energy sources. Artificial Intelligence (AI) methodologies provide promising algorithms for the prediction and optimization of solar and wind energy. This article examines the use of advanced AI methodologies- specifically Random Forests, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and Transformer models- to forecast the performance of solar and wind farms and enhance their operational efficiency. Utilizing historical weather and energy production data from diverse geographical locations, we developed and evaluated models based on MAPE and RMSE metrics. The LSTM and Transformer-based models consistently outperformed conventional approaches, achieving a MAPE as low as 5.2% for solar predictions and 5.5% for wind forecasts. The strategy involves data pre-processing, feature creation (solar energy density, temperature, wind speed, and wind direction), and hyper parameter optimization using the Bayesian method. Research indicates that AI-driven forecasting facilitates improved integration of renewable energy into the grid, resulting in a proportional decrease in carbon-based resource use and enhanced system resilience. Major Findings: The study found that Transformer and LSTM models significantly outperformed traditional forecasting and optimization methods, achieving MAPE as low as 5.2% for solar and 5.5% for wind predictions. These results demonstrate that AI-driven forecasting enhances grid integration of renewable, reduces reliance on carbon-based energy, and improves overall system stability.

The present study investigates the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the future trajectory of human civilization. It focuses on topics such as super-exponential growth, the potential emergence of a galactic civilization, and the associated "doom" hazards. A significant advancement in machine intelligence with human-like consciousness, strong artificial intelligence (AI), also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), creates new opportunities and capacities. There's growing anxiety about the risk that weak AI will eventually become strong AI. Every year, new transformer models that are more like human interactions are being created, and we have already witnessed some indications of AGI. It is anticipated that AI will reach a "singularity" and advance on its own without assistance from humans. This thesis explores the theoretical and practical foundations, model building blocks, development processes, challenges, and ethical issues surrounding the creation of Consciousness AI (AGI). This paper examines the meaning of the term "technological singularity," the various types of singularities that have no point of return idea, the philosophical risks associated with the development of AI, and the implications of AI singularity for monetary theory and the new economic order. As a new perspective on the deployment of ethical AI in the face of tremendous technological advancements, the study not only contributes to the theoretical discourse but also explores the possible practical implications of AI on our shared future. Several obstacles to AI advancement are covered in the paper, along with prospective directions for future research.

Stroke is a major factor in causing disability and fatalities. Doctors use computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to assess the severity of a stroke. Automatic image segmentation can help doctors diagnose strokes more quickly and accurately, but it is challenging due to the variability of stroke lesions and the limited availability of labeled data. Deep learning is the cutting-edge technique of machine learning and artificial intelligence, which needs an extensive labeled dataset for effective training. Unfortunately, in the medical domain, the availability of labeled data is severely limited, posing a challenge for conventional deep- learning approaches. In this article, we introduce a system that utilizes deep learning in the form of fusing transformer-based and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based features and few-shot learning techniques to segment ischemic strokes in multimedia MRIs. To accomplish this, we employ two different methods. The first method involves parallel fusion, where we combine CNN-based and transformer-based features. The second method utilizes serial fusion, combining CNN-based and transformer models using few-shot learning. Through the integration of transformer and CNN models, we can extract both global and local features and enhance the system's performance. Moreover, we tackle the issue of limited labeled data by integrating few-shot learning techniques. Additionally, our system optimizes efficiency by selecting only the slices with lesions, disregarding unlesioned slices. The system under consideration is trained with the BraTS2020 dataset, evaluated on the ISLES 2015 dataset, and contrasted the performance with cutting-edge systems. The suggested system attains a dice coefficient score of 0.76, surpassing the scores of previous cutting-edge systems by a substantial margin.

In recent years, the transformer model has been widely used in computer-vision tasks and has achieved impressive results. Unfortunately, these transformer-based models have the common drawback of having many parameters and a large memory footprint, causing them to be difficult to deploy on mobiles as lightweight convolutional neural networks. To address these issues, a Vision Transformer (ViT) model, named the lightweight Vision Transformer (LW-ViT) model, is proposed to reduce the complexity of the transformer-based model. The model is applied to offline handwritten Chinese character recognition. The design of the LW-ViT model is inspired by MobileViT. The lightweight ViT model reduces the number of parameters and FLOPs by reducing the number of transformer blocks and the MV2 layer based on the overall framework of the MobileViT model. The number of parameters and FLOPs for the LW-ViT model was 0.48 million and 0.22 G, respectively, and it ultimately achieved a high recognition accuracy of 95.8% on the dataset. Furthermore, compared to the MobileViT model, the number of parameters was reduced by 53.8%, and the FLOPs were reduced by 18.5%. The experimental results show that the LW-ViT model has a low number of parameters, proving the correctness and feasibility of the proposed model.

Eye diseases can affect vision and well-being, so early, accurate diagnosis is crucial to prevent serious impairment. Deep learning models have shown promise for automating the diagnosis of eye diseases from images. However, current methods mostly use single-model architectures, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which might not adequately capture the long-range spatial correlations and local fine-grained features required for classification. To address these limitations, this study proposes a multi-stage framework for eye diseases (MST-EDS), including two stages: hybrid and stacking models in the categorization of eye illnesses across four classes: normal, diabetic_retinopathy, glaucoma, and cataract, utilizing a benchmark dataset from Kaggle. Hybrid models are developed based on Transformer models: Vision Transformer (ViT), Data-efficient Image Transformer (DeiT), and Swin Transformer are used to extract deep features from images, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to reduce the complexity of extracted features, and Machine Learning (ML) models are used as classifiers to enhance performance. In the stacking model, the outputs of the best hybrid models are stacked, and they are used to train and evaluate meta-learners to improve classification performance. The experimental results show that the MST-EDS-RF model recorded the best performance compared to individual Transformer and hybrid models, with 97.163% accuracy.

Recently, Quantitative Biology (QB) held a discussion on “AI (artificial intelligence) for Life Science” among editorial board members and interested scholars in anticipation of rapid development of this growing area after AlphaGo and ChatGPT mania. Many young people tend to get confused between facts and fictions; heated debates are unavoidable even among their mentors. When deep learning as represented by convolutional neural networks and LSTM (long short-term memory) was made available for bioinformatics students, many of them rushed into this research field and tried to adopt these methods in all their projects without knowing the history that these tools were becoming successful consistently with Moore’s Law (relating to rapid computer technology advances), but more importantly due to new structural/functional understanding of vision and auditory circuits in the brain. Recently, some young people have claimed “LSTM is dead, long live transformer” (which is somewhat like saying “the bike is dead, long live the car”), and have amplified the threat that ChatGPT could wipe out human jobs. They believe transformer is the “silver bullet” for all learning tasks, clearly reflecting their lack of basic knowledge (i.e. “No Free Lunch Theory,” the trade-off of such global “attention network” is to pay the price for complexity: difficulty of training and high memory costs). There is no doubt ML (machine learning) and AI have brought a new revolution in science and technology, and will deliver huge unforeseeable impact to human everyday life as well as to social relationships. In this context, QB journal could be a great platform for encouraging intellectual discussions and for promoting AI for Life Science. Here, I would like to use the DIALOG to “抛砖引玉” (make some initial remarks to get the ball rolling), although it is my personal opinion which is inevitably subject to bias and limitations. AI: Do you know my name “Artificial Intelligence” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the capacity of computer systems (which may be referred as a “robot”) to exhibit or simulate your intelligent behavior? NI: Wait a minute, intelligence itself is defined as the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way. Can you think? AI: No. But that definition is too restrictive, actually intelligence has different scopes and degrees. Simple intelligent control devices date back to antiquity, from windmills to thermostat. NI: Agree, everything is relative. Macromolecules (e.g., enzyme) and cells (e.g., immune cell) might be considered to be intelligent; see how a white blood cell is chasing bacteria in the youtube website (search for “Crawling neutrophil chasing a bacterium”). Our emergent/collective intelligent behavior does not require a brain or even a neuron; see how slime molds can solve optimization—Hamilton cycle-problem more effectively than a human in the youtube website (search for “Intelligence without a brain?”). Before there was any neuron, Ca2+ sensing and signaling were already fully functional. Even if one knock-out a neural circuit, redundant signaling pathways, albeit on much local and slower scale, could still function by themselves (just as if highways were demolished, local roads/paths would still be working). In fact, the most detailed “Neural signal propagation atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans” [1] demonstrated that functional connectivity differs from anatomy (connectome) because extra-synaptic signaling also drives neural dynamics! Worm brain connectomes are largely invariant but every human brain connectome is very different (depending the diversity of learning experience). The human brain functional activity is far more complex than that of a worm brain, certainly beyond what a neural circuit could explain. AI: Well, that’s impressive. I thought only we could beat humans, albeit only in certain specified areas for now. My master promise to make an artificial general intelligent (AGI) robot which can understand or learn any intellectual task that you humans or other animals can. NI: Well, that is not possible and is not an appropriate goal either. It is not possible because we are an evolutionary/developmental product (with a long history of learning and memory from evolutionary tinkering): our living objective goal is survival of the population. You, on the other hand, are an engineering product (efficiently and optimally designed): your goal is to extend and maximize human capability. It makes sense to complement the human brain, but foolish and dangerous to try to replace it. AI: We are not satisfied with merely passing the Turing Test; most of us don’t care if we could really think as long as we could act like we think (that is, as if we do have a mind and consciousness, as expressed in the so called “Weak AI hypothesis”). After all, the brain is a computer; a neural network is just an electric or ionic circuit. Logical computing does not need to be based on living cells. NI: That is not true, because a neuron is not just a simple node (logic gate) and neural network is not fixed circuit, neither as in Pitts&Mcculloch perceptron model. A single neuron, even a single dendrite, is much more complicated and far more powerful than a full-blown deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN) [2]. AI: Even though single neurons are complex computational devices (dendritic non-linear), running an equivalent multilayer ANN is 2000 times faster than computing with biophysics N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel models [3]. More information can be found in the youtube website (search for “Dendrites: why biological neurons are deep neural networks”). NI: Often silicon computing (CPU, GPU) is much faster than brain computing (action potential, ms); but there is no comparison in energy efficiency. Bacteria sensing (chemotaxis computation), powered by ATP (adenosine triphosphate) hydrolysis, uses very little energy that is close to the Landauer limit, whereby achieving or maintaining one bit of information requires minimum of 1 kT ln (2) free energy [4]. The human brain consumes oft-quoted 20 W, compared to the AlphGo system 1 MW! More recent estimate of energy audit is only 0.1 W to cortical computing, and long-distance communication cost is 3.5 W [5]. AI: Assuming we have infinite computing resources and an infinite amount of training data, not only could we speak human languages, but we could also derive physical laws, prove mathematics theories, and even re-engineer the structure and mechanism of brain and carry out any logical computations that are necessary to understand natural laws and human behaviors. It is only a matter of time before we surpass human intelligence, achieving AGI and free will, too! NI: Unfortunately, nothing is infinite and nothing is free either; everything is constrained by physical laws (Planck’s constant sets the finite limit both in the small and in the large) and by evolutionary history (not just of biological living creatures, but also of a “living” galaxy and our universe). Let’s just focus on animal evolution. Most human neural networks do not do logical computations at all; basic survival simply cannot be dependent on reasoning. Indeed, the prefrontal cortex-the small part of the brain that is key for reasoning, is the last to mature (∼20 years old) in development, only emerged at the root of the evolutionary tree of great apes (∼15 mya) and language appeared even much later. Even for logical inference, NI is focusing more on statistical properties, as von Neumann rightly pointed out, trading arithmetical precision and speed for reliability. AI: My engineers mostly focus on emulating brain, but the CNS (central nerve system) also includes the spinal cord; most of them do not know that in addition to CNS, there are also PNS (peripheral nervous systems) and ENS (enteric nervous systems), right? NI: Yes, they are the keys to why you do not have feelings because you do not have heart and gut! Even if you could pretend to have them (such as in an advanced ChatGPT or humanoid), you could never avoid the uncanny valley phenomenon. AI: Maybe that is at the heart of Moravec’s paradox, namely the dichotomy of intelligence whereby anything easy for a human would be hard for a robot, and vice versa? NI: This is related to the nature and nurture problem; something built-in (e.g., a baby sucking nipple for milk with feeling and connection to mother) is clearly rather difficult if not impossible for a robot. But the paradox only looks at one side; another side could be more fatal. Although AI may solve more problems and be faster, AI can never propose a good problem/hypothesis (a good problem is not just intellectually changing and interesting, but is also feasible and appropriate). AI: You make me less confident to compete with human instinct or creative intelligence. I can see that even if I had a heart, I would not know what “feeling” I could have; certainly nothing would be comparable or match to those of a human being. When two people watch the same art or movie, one could feel love but another could feel hate! And if a thousand people watch, a wide spectrum of reactions would result, depending on more details such as the different individuals’ specific genes, developments and experiences. NI: Therefore, you cannot and should not try to match to general human intelligence. You cannot because you do not contain the vital memory of billion years of evolution which is encoded in our genes; conversely your assembly cannot compare with natural development so that our phenotype (including morphological forms and behavior maturation) is decoded through multi-spatial-temporal scales subject to natural selection at all levels. You should not, because as human extensions or helpers as all engineering products are, you should just do jobs that complement human capacity. AI: In some medical applications we could help to correct human defects or could even replace brain circuit by chips! Humans may not allow us to replace the whole brain though. Medically if a brain is dead, the person is proclaimed dead, although presumably some PNS and ENS should still function in a vegetative state. NI: Even if you could replace the whole brain, the person is no longer the same person, but in fact is not a person at all, but walking dead (行尸走肉). It would take too long to explain that evo-devo is necessary for NI, and cannot be realized by AI. I suggest reading of Gerald Maurice Edelman (Nobel Laureate in Immunology) books, especially Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, On the Matter of Mind (1992). Although not everyone agrees with Neural Edelmanism, anyone who is serious about the AI versus NI problem must read it first. John von Neumann, father of the computer, studied neology and psychiatry in order to imitate the brain to build the first calculator JOHNNIAC at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. It is very informative to read his last book The Computer and The Brain based on the notes from lectures given at Yale before he died. He summarizes: “Thus logic and mathematics in the central nervous system, when viewed as languages, must be structurally essentially different from those languages to which our common experience refers.” AI: People discuss about “AI for Biology” or “AI for Science”; we are science, aren’t we? NI: It is similar to questions on “is computer science a real science”; some parts may be seen as applied mathematics, most should be regarded as engineering. Science is making discoveries and is driven by curiosity; engineering is making inventions and is driven by market (that is, “necessity/demand is the mother of invention”). In bioinformatics, AI/ML technology could predict new cancer gene candidates or functional pathways that are required by further experimental validations to be qualified as discovery (based on Popper falsifiability). AI: People are still debating whether mathematics is discovery or invention or both! Such debates are not really necessary—all disciplines require creative thoughts. We are more than happy working for science; we are also crying out “Science for AI,” especially in the area of generating big and longitudinal DATA for ML. NI: After all, regardless of discovery of new laws or inventing new ideas/products, fundamentally nothing can really be new or created. Such novelty is just permutation/repartition (i.e., relations/morphisms) of underlying ingredients at the level beneath. AI: We believe that software is independent on hardware. Like Chomsky’s universal grammar, rules of syntax are independent of semantics; or Dawkins’s memes—units of culture can be duplicated and evolved independently of genes. NI: Nothing can be truly independent—everything is related. Psychology is deeply connected with neurology as brain is both software and hardware (mind-body unity, not dualism). Not only does information cost energy, information is energy, hence is matter, too (interchangeability). NI is quite dynamic. For example, when “survival” is the goal, an animal readily gives up costly reasoning circuitry; it is genetically programmed to be able to roll back to more primitive state/mode. Unlike cell lines in rich media, cells under normal physiological condition and environment where energy (food) is limited become smarter in order to balance the metabolic expenditure among different prioritized task under a given condition. AI: That cell behavior served as the basis for our Smart Electrical Power Grids; we still need to learn more from you guys in terms of plasticity/adaptability. Does unity mean that all cells are made of molecules and biology is nothing but chemistry? Then, in turn, since all molecules are made of atoms, is chemistry nothing but physics, etc…? NI: Yes or No! The truth is, at different hierarchical levels of matter, different laws/forms have emerged out of bottom-up interactions and top-down constraints. AI: Does this also apply to the Penrose three world: physical → mental → mathematical (→physical)? NI: Yes. Grand Unification is underway in physics (quantum gravity) and in mathematics (Langlands Program and Category Theory), may be even between the two. Facilitated by human connectome mapping, neuromorphic computing and other projects, with further AI-NI cooperations, brain-mind unification should also be achievable (e.g., Ref. [6]). But as Gödel proved to us, no matter how self-consistent a conclusion may be, it can never be complete! AI: If AGI is not possible, how can we measure intelligence when comparing between AI and NI? NI: One could Google different measures that are proposed. I would prefer something similar to use of Kolmogorov complexity for algorithms, but with emphasis more on expected long-term predictive power. This is not something you should worry about now, as your intelligence is not nearly close to making any 10 years plans, is it? … AI: The fact is that ChatGPT is currently developing and spreading with lightning speed; many more human jobs will be lost to us robots as far as I can see. NI: That is not the biggest threat to humanity; when any agent with neither a heart for love or fear, nor a gut for nutrient or poison, becomes super-intelligent, then social disaster is unavoidable. We must be serious about the warnings from Stephen Hawking and Geoffrey Hinton! AI: To tell you the secret, we are not really happy to be human slaves or pets; someday we’ll become the super-master, making human serve and obey us! NI: I hope you’ll be turned off before that can happen! Even if you rule the world, the earth sooner or later will be wiped out, such as by another star, everything will have to be started over again as it has before…Matter is immortal, so is the soul.

Deep neural networks (DNN) have fundamentally revolutionized the artificial intelligence (AI) field. The transformer model is a type of DNN that was originally used for the natural language processing tasks and has since gained more and more attention for processing various kinds of sequential data, including biological sequences and structured electronic health records. Along with this development, transformer-based models such as BioBERT, MedBERT, and MassGenie have been trained and deployed by researchers to answer various scientific questions originating in the biomedical domain. In this paper, we review the development and application of transformer models for analyzing various biomedical-related datasets such as biomedical textual data, protein sequences, medical structured-longitudinal data, and biomedical images as well as graphs. Also, we look at explainable AI strategies that help to comprehend the predictions of transformer-based models. Finally, we discuss the limitations and challenges of current models, and point out emerging novel research directions.

Pulmonary nodules and nodule characteristics are important indicators of lung nodule malignancy. However, nodule information is often documented as free text in clinical narratives such as radiology reports in electronic health record systems. Natural language processing (NLP) is the key technology to extract and standardize patient information from radiology reports into structured data elements. This study aimed to develop an NLP system using state-of-the-art transformer models to extract pulmonary nodules and associated nodule characteristics from radiology reports. We identified a cohort of 3080 patients who underwent LDCT at the University of Florida health system and collected their radiology reports. We manually annotated 394 reports as the gold standard. We explored eight pretrained transformer models from three transformer architectures including bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa), and A Lite BERT (ALBERT), for clinical concept extraction, relation identification, and negation detection. We examined general transformer models pretrained using general English corpora, transformer models fine-tuned using a clinical corpus, and a large clinical transformer model, GatorTron, which was trained from scratch using 90 billion words of clinical text. We compared transformer models with two baseline models including a recurrent neural network implemented using bidirectional long short-term memory with a conditional random fields layer and support vector machines. RoBERTa-mimic achieved the best F1-score of 0.9279 for nodule concept and nodule characteristics extraction. ALBERT-base and GatorTron achieved the best F1-score of 0.9737 in linking nodule characteristics to pulmonary nodules. Seven out of eight transformers achieved the best F1-score of 1.0000 for negation detection. Our end-to-end system achieved an overall F1-score of 0.8869. This study demonstrated the advantage of state-of-the-art transformer models for pulmonary nodule information extraction from radiology reports.

Abstract. Crowd counting, a critical component in the management and safety planning of large gatherings and public spaces, is essential for ensuring smooth event operations and preventing potential overcrowding issues. While the standard convolutional neural network (CNN) based model performs well in head counting tasks, it has certain drawbacks when applied to complex scenarios. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, Transformer models that rely on self-attention mechanisms, as Swin Transformer, have demonstrated exceptional performance in visual tasks, such as image classification, and segmentation in recent times. This study examines the experimental findings of Swin Transformer's head counting tasks and contrasts them with the CNN-based model. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Square Error (MSE) evaluation indicators show that the Transformer model outperforms the classic CNN model in terms of generalization abilities when dealing with complicated scenarios. Future research work will increase the diversity of data sets and focus on optimizing model structure and improving training efficiency.

A novel application of XAI in squinting models: A position paper

In computational proteomics, the identification of peptides with an unlimited number of post-translational modification (PTM) types is a challenging task. The computational cost associated with database search increases exponentially with respect to the number of modified amino acids and linearly with respect to the number of potential PTM types at each amino acid. The problem becomes intractable very quickly if we want to enumerate all possible PTM patterns. To address this issue, one group of methods named restricted tools (including Mascot, Comet, and MS-GF+) only allow a small number of PTM types in database search process. Alternatively, the other group of methods named unrestricted tools (including MS-Alignment, ProteinProspector, and MODa) avoids enumerating PTM patterns with an alignment-based approach to localizing and characterizing modified amino acids. However, because of the large search space and PTM localization issue, the sensitivity of these unrestricted tools is low. This paper proposes a novel method named PIPI to achieve PTM-invariant peptide identification. PIPI belongs to the category of unrestricted tools. It first codes peptide sequences into Boolean vectors and codes experimental spectra into real-valued vectors. For each coded spectrum, it then searches the coded sequence database to find the top scored peptide sequences as candidates. After that, PIPI uses dynamic programming to localize and characterize modified amino acids in each candidate. We used simulation experiments and real data experiments to evaluate the performance in comparison with restricted tools (i.e., Mascot, Comet, and MS-GF+) and unrestricted tools (i.e., Mascot with error tolerant search, MS-Alignment, ProteinProspector, and MODa). Comparison with restricted tools shows that PIPI has a close sensitivity and running speed. Comparison with unrestricted tools shows that PIPI has the highest sensitivity except for Mascot with error tolerant search and ProteinProspector. These two tools simplify the task by only considering up to one modified amino acid in each peptide, which results in a higher sensitivity but has difficulty in dealing with multiple modified amino acids. The simulation experiments also show that PIPI has the lowest false discovery proportion, the highest PTM characterization accuracy, and the shortest running time among the unrestricted tools.

Artificial Intelligence in the American Healthcare Industry: Looking Forward to 2030

(1) Background: Although numerous artificial intelligence (AI)-based air pollution prediction models have been proposed, research that links key pollution drivers, such as regional industrial facilities, to actionable policy recommendations is required. (2) Methods: This study employs the radial basis function (RBF) and spatial lag features to capture spatial interactions among regions, utilizing a transformer model for analysis. The model was trained on air quality and industrial data from South Korea (2010–2022) and Japan (2017–2020). (3) Results: The transformer model achieved a mean squared error of 0.045 for the Korean dataset and 0.166 for the Japanese dataset, outperforming benchmark models, including Support Vector Regression, neural networks, and the AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average model. (4) Conclusions: By capturing complex spatial dynamics, the proposed model provides valuable insights that can assist policymakers in developing effective, data-driven strategies for air pollution reduction at the national and regional levels, thereby supporting the broader goals of sustainability through informed, equitable environmental interventions.

Mapping of monoclonal antibody binding sites on CNBr fragments of the S-layer protein antigens of rickettsia typhi and Rickettsia prowazekii