More Like this

1. Nonparametric generalized fiducial inference for survival functions under censoring

   https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asz016  

   Cui, Y ; Hannig, J ( June 2019 , Biometrika)

   Summary Since the introduction of fiducial inference by Fisher in the 1930s, its application has been largely confined to relatively simple, parametric problems. In this paper, we present what might be the first time fiducial inference is systematically applied to estimation of a nonparametric survival function under right censoring. We find that the resulting fiducial distribution gives rise to surprisingly good statistical procedures applicable to both one-sample and two-sample problems. In particular, we use the fiducial distribution of a survival function to construct pointwise and curvewise confidence intervals for the survival function, and propose tests based on the curvewise confidence interval. We establish a functional Bernstein–von Mises theorem, and perform thorough simulation studies in scenarios with different levels of censoring. The proposed fiducial-based confidence intervals maintain coverage in situations where asymptotic methods often have substantial coverage problems. Furthermore, the average length of the proposed confidence intervals is often shorter than the length of confidence intervals for competing methods that maintain coverage. Finally, the proposed fiducial test is more powerful than various types of log-rank tests and sup log-rank tests in some scenarios. We illustrate the proposed fiducial test by comparing chemotherapy against chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy, using data from the treatment of locally unresectable gastric cancer. 

   more » « less
2. Generalized fiducial inference on the mean of zero-inflated Poisson and Poisson hurdle models

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-021-00117-0  

   Zou, Yixuan ; Hannig, Jan ; Young, Derek S. ( December 2021 , Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract Zero-inflated and hurdle models are widely applied to count data possessing excess zeros, where they can simultaneously model the process from how the zeros were generated and potentially help mitigate the effects of overdispersion relative to the assumed count distribution. Which model to use depends on how the zeros are generated: zero-inflated models add an additional probability mass on zero, while hurdle models are two-part models comprised of a degenerate distribution for the zeros and a zero-truncated distribution. Developing confidence intervals for such models is challenging since no closed-form function is available to calculate the mean. In this study, generalized fiducial inference is used to construct confidence intervals for the means of zero-inflated Poisson and Poisson hurdle models. The proposed methods are assessed by an intensive simulation study. An illustrative example demonstrates the inference methods. 

   more » « less
3. Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: constraints on intrinsic alignments and their colour dependence from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

   https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2197  

   Samuroff, S ; Blazek, J ; Troxel, M A ; MacCrann, N ; Krause, E ; Leonard, C D ; Prat, J ; Gruen, D ; Dodelson, S ; Eifler, T F ; et al ( November 2019 , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society)

   Abstract We perform a joint analysis of intrinsic alignments and cosmology using tomographic weak lensing, galaxy clustering, and galaxy–galaxy lensing measurements from Year 1 (Y1) of the Dark Energy Survey. We define early- and late-type subsamples, which are found to pass a series of systematics tests, including for spurious photometric redshift error and point spread function correlations. We analyse these split data alongside the fiducial mixed Y1 sample using a range of intrinsic alignment models. In a fiducial non-linear alignment model analysis, assuming a flat Λ cold dark matter cosmology, we find a significant difference in intrinsic alignment amplitude, with early-type galaxies favouring $A_\mathrm{IA} = 2.38^{+0.32}_{-0.31}$ and late-type galaxies consistent with no intrinsic alignments at $0.05^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$. The analysis is repeated using a number of extended model spaces, including a physically motivated model that includes both tidal torquing and tidal alignment mechanisms. In multiprobe likelihood chains in which cosmology, intrinsic alignments in both galaxy samples and all other relevant systematics are varied simultaneously, we find the tidal alignment and tidal torquing parts of the intrinsic alignment signal have amplitudes $A_1 = 2.66 ^{+0.67}_{-0.66}$, $A_2=-2.94^{+1.94}_{-1.83}$, respectively, for early-type galaxies and $A_1 = 0.62 ^{+0.41}_{-0.41}$, $A_2 = -2.26^{+1.30}_{-1.16}$ for late-type galaxies. In the full (mixed) Y1 sample the best constraints are $A_1 = 0.70 ^{+0.41}_{-0.38}$, $A_2 = -1.36 ^{+1.08}_{-1.41}$. For all galaxy splits and IA models considered, we report cosmological parameter constraints consistent with the results of the main DES Y1 cosmic shear and multiprobe cosmology papers. 

   more » « less
4. The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus: The Breast Tissue Subset

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB52430.2021.9672275  

   Wevodau, Z. ; Doshna, B. ; Jhala, N. ; Akhtar, I. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2021 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. (Ed.)

   The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA. 

   more » « less
5. High-Rate Machine Learning for Forecasting Time-Series Signals

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FCCM53951.2022.9786127  

   Panahi, Atiyehsadat ; Kabir, Ehsan ; Downey, Austin ; Andrews, David ; Huang, Miaoqing ; Bakos, Jason D. ( May 2022 , 2022 IEEE 30th Annual International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM))

   “Active structures” are physical structures that incorporate real-time monitoring and control. Examples include active vibration damping or blast mitigation systems. Evaluating physics-based models in real-time is generally not feasible for such systems having high-rate dynamics which require microsecond response times, but data-driven machine-learning-based models can potentially offer a solution. This paper compares the cost and performance of two FPGA-based implementations of real-time, continuously-trained models for forecasting timeseries signals with non-stationarities, with one using HighLevel Synthesis (HLS) and the other a programmable overlay architecture. The proposed model accepts a uni-variate vibration signal and seeks to forecast future samples to inform highrate controllers. The proposed forecasting method performs two concurrent neural inference operations. One inference forecasts the state of the signal f samples into the future as a function of the most recent h samples, while the other forecasts the current sample given h samples starting from h + f − 1 samples into the past. The first forecast produces the forecast while the second forecast allows the system to calculate the model’s loss and perform an immediate model update before the next sample period. 

   more » « less