More Like this

1. Order‐restricted inference for clustered ROC data with application to fingerprint matching accuracy

   https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13177  

   Zhang, Wei ; Tang, Larry L. ; Li, Qizhai ; Liu, Aiyi ; Lee, Mei‐Ling Ting ( December 2019 , Biometrics)

   Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is commonly used to evaluate and compare the accuracy of classification methods or markers. Estimating ROC curves has been an important problem in various fields including biometric recognition and diagnostic medicine. In real applications, classification markers are often developed under two or more ordered conditions, such that a natural stochastic ordering exists among the observations. Incorporating such a stochastic ordering into estimation can improve statistical efficiency (Davidov and Herman, 2012). In addition, clustered and correlated data arise when multiple measurements are gleaned from the same subject, making estimation of ROC curves complicated due to within‐cluster correlations. In this article, we propose to model the ROC curve using a weighted empirical process to jointly account for the order constraint and within‐cluster correlation structure. The algebraic properties of resulting summary statistics of the ROC curve such as its area and partial area are also studied. The algebraic expressions reduce to the ones by Davidov and Herman (2012) for independent observations. We derive asymptotic properties of the proposed order‐restricted estimators and show that they have smaller mean‐squared errors than the existing estimators. Simulation studies also demonstrate better performance of the newly proposed estimators over existing methods for finite samples. The proposed method is further exemplified with the fingerprint matching data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Database 4.

    

   more » « less
2. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” 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, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
3. Multi-phase algorithm design for accurate and efficient model fitting

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04028-w  

   Steakelum, Joshua ; Aubertine, Jacob ; Chen, Kenan ; Nagaraju, Vidhyashree ; Fiondella, Lance ( March 2021 , Annals of Operations Research)

   null (Ed.)

   Recent research applies soft computing techniques to fit software reliability growth models. However, runtime performance and the distribution of the distance from an optimal solution over multiple runs must be explicitly considered to justify the practical utility of these approaches, promote comparison, and support reproducible research. This paper presents a meta-optimization framework to design stable and efficient multi-phase algorithms for fitting software reliability growth models. The approach combines initial parameter estimation techniques from statistical algorithms, the global search properties of soft computing, and the rapid convergence of numerical methods. Designs that exhibit the best balance between runtime performance and accuracy are identified. The approach is illustrated through nonhomogeneous Poisson process and covariate software reliability growth models, including a cross-validation step on data sets not used to identify designs. The results indicate the nonhomogeneous Poisson process model considered is too simple to benefit from soft computing because it incurs additional runtime with no increase in accuracy attained. However, a multi-phase design for the covariate software reliability growth model consisting of the bat algorithm followed by a numerical method achieves better performance and converges consistently, compared to a numerical method only. The proposed approach supports higher dimensional covariate software reliability growth model fitting suitable for implementation in a tool. 

   more » « less
4. Addressing CT metal artifacts using photon‐counting detectors and one‐step spectral CT image reconstruction

   https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15621  

   Schmidt, Taly Gilat ; Sammut, Barbara A. ; Barber, Rina Foygel ; Pan, Xiaochuan ; Sidky, Emil Y. ( April 2022 , Medical Physics)

   The constrained one‐step spectral CT image reconstruction (cOSSCIR) algorithm with a nonconvex alternating direction method of multipliers optimizer is proposed for addressing computed tomography (CT) metal artifacts caused by beam hardening, noise, and photon starvation. The quantitative performance of cOSSCIR is investigated through a series of photon‐counting CT simulations.

   cOSSCIR directly estimates basis material maps from photon‐counting data using a physics‐based forward model that accounts for beam hardening. The cOSSCIR optimization framework places constraints on the basis maps, which we hypothesize will stabilize the decomposition and reduce streaks caused by noise and photon starvation. Another advantage of cOSSCIR is that the spectral data need not be registered, so that a ray can be used even if some energy window measurements are unavailable. Photon‐counting CT acquisitions of a virtual pelvic phantom with low‐contrast soft tissue texture and bilateral hip prostheses were simulated. Bone and water basis maps were estimated using the cOSSCIR algorithm and combined to form a virtual monoenergetic image for the evaluation of metal artifacts. The cOSSCIR images were compared to a “two‐step” decomposition approach that first estimated basis sinograms using a maximum likelihood algorithm and then reconstructed basis maps using an iterative total variation constrained least‐squares optimization (MLE+TV). Images were also compared to a nonspectral TV reconstruction of the total number of counts detected for each ray with and without normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) applied. The simulated metal density was increased to investigate the effects of increasing photon starvation. The quantitative error and standard deviation in regions of the phantom were compared across the investigated algorithms. The ability of cOSSCIR to reproduce the soft‐tissue texture, while reducing metal artifacts, was quantitatively evaluated.

   Noiseless simulations demonstrated the convergence of the cOSSCIR and MLE+TV algorithms to the correct basis maps in the presence of beam‐hardening effects. When noise was simulated, cOSSCIR demonstrated a quantitative error of −1 HU, compared to 2 HU error for the MLE+TV algorithm and −154 HU error for the nonspectral TV+NMAR algorithm. For the cOSSCIR algorithm, the standard deviation in the central iodine region of interest was 20 HU, compared to 299 HU for the MLE+TV algorithm, 41 HU for the MLE+TV+Mask algorithm that excluded rays through metal, and 55 HU for the nonspectral TV+NMAR algorithm. Increasing levels of photon starvation did not impact the bias or standard deviation of the cOSSCIR images. cOSSCIR was able to reproduce the soft‐tissue texture when an appropriate regularization constraint value was selected.

   By directly inverting photon‐counting CT data into basis maps using an accurate physics‐based forward model and a constrained optimization algorithm, cOSSCIR avoids metal artifacts due to beam hardening, noise, and photon starvation. The cOSSCIR algorithm demonstrated improved stability and accuracy compared to a two‐step method of decomposition followed by reconstruction.

    

   more » « less
5. Semiparametric Additive Time-Varying Coefficients Model for Longitudinal Data with Censored Time Origin

   https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13610  

   Sun, Yanqing ; Shou, Qiong ; Gilbert, Peter B. ; Heng, Fei ; Qian, Xiyuan ( December 2021 , Biometrics)

   Statistical analysis of longitudinal data often involves modeling treatment effects on clinically relevant longitudinal biomarkers since an initial event (the time origin). In some studies including preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials, some participants have biomarkers measured starting at the time origin, whereas others have biomarkers measured starting later with the time origin unknown. The semiparametric additive time-varying coefficient model is investigated where the effects of some covariates vary nonparametrically with time while the effects of others remain constant. Weighted profile least squares estimators coupled with kernel smoothing are developed. The method uses the expectation maximization approach to deal with the censored time origin. The Kaplan–Meier estimator and other failure time regression models such as the Cox model can be utilized to estimate the distribution and the conditional distribution of left censored event time related to the censored time origin. Asymptotic properties of the parametric and nonparametric estimators and consistent asymptotic variance estimators are derived. A two-stage estimation procedure for choosing weight is proposed to improve estimation efficiency. Numerical simulations are conducted to examine finite sample properties of the proposed estimators. The simulation results show that the theory and methods work well. The efficiency gain of the two-stage estimation procedure depends on the distribution of the longitudinal error processes. The method is applied to analyze data from the Merck 023/HVTN 502 Step HIV vaccine study.

    

   more » « less