More Like this

1. Multi‐scale cascaded networks for synthesis of mammogram to decrease intensity distortion and increase model‐based perceptual similarity

   https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16007  

   Jiang, Gongfa ; He, Zilong ; Zhou, Yuanpin ; Wei, Jun ; Xu, Yuesheng ; Zeng, Hui ; Wu, Jiefang ; Qin, Genggeng ; Chen, Weiguo ; Lu, Yao ( October 2022 , Medical Physics)

   Synthetic digital mammogram (SDM) is a 2D image generated from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and used as a substitute for a full‐field digital mammogram (FFDM) to reduce the radiation dose for breast cancer screening. The previous deep learning‐based method used FFDM images as the ground truth, and trained a single neural network to directly generate SDM images with similar appearances (e.g., intensity distribution, textures) to the FFDM images. However, the FFDM image has a different texture pattern from DBT. The difference in texture pattern might make the training of the neural network unstable and result in high‐intensity distortion, which makes it hard to decrease intensity distortion and increase perceptual similarity (e.g., generate similar textures) at the same time. Clinically, radiologists want to have a 2D synthesized image that feels like an FFDM image in vision and preserves local structures such as both mass and microcalcifications (MCs) in DBT because radiologists have been trained on reading FFDM images for a long time, while local structures are important for diagnosis. In this study, we proposed to use a deep convolutional neural network to learn the transformation to generate SDM from DBT.

   To decrease intensity distortion and increase perceptual similarity, a multi‐scale cascaded network (MSCN) is proposed to generate low‐frequency structures (e.g., intensity distribution) and high‐frequency structures (e.g., textures) separately. The MSCN consist of two cascaded sub‐networks: the first sub‐network is used to predict the low‐frequency part of the FFDM image; the second sub‐network is used to generate a full SDM image with textures similar to the FFDM image based on the prediction of the first sub‐network. The mean‐squared error (MSE) objective function is used to train the first sub‐network, termed low‐frequency network, to generate a low‐frequency SDM image. The gradient‐guided generative adversarial network's objective function is to train the second sub‐network, termed high‐frequency network, to generate a full SDM image with textures similar to the FFDM image.

   1646 cases with FFDM and DBT were retrospectively collected from the Hologic Selenia system for training and validation dataset, and 145 cases with masses or MC clusters were independently collected from the Hologic Selenia system for testing dataset. For comparison, the baseline network has the same architecture as the high‐frequency network and directly generates a full SDM image. Compared to the baseline method, the proposed MSCN improves the peak‐to‐noise ratio from 25.3 to 27.9 dB and improves the structural similarity from 0.703 to 0.724, and significantly increases the perceptual similarity.

   The proposed method can stabilize the training and generate SDM images with lower intensity distortion and higher perceptual similarity.

    

   more » « less
2. Super-resolution and Segmentation Deep Learning for Breast Cancer Histopathology Image Analysis.

   https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.463839  

   Juhong, Aniwat ; Li, Bo ; Yao, Cheng-You ; Yang, Chia-Wei ; Agnew, Dalen ; Lei, Yu Leo ; Huang, Xuefei ; Piyawattanametha, Wibool ; Qiu, Zhen ( December 2022 , Biomedical Optics Express)

   Traditionally, a high-performance microscope with a large numerical aperture is required to acquire high-resolution images. However, the images’ size is typically tremendous. Therefore, they are not conveniently managed and transferred across a computer network or stored in a limited computer storage system. As a result, image compression is commonly used to reduce image size resulting in poor image resolution. Here, we demonstrate custom convolution neural networks (CNNs) for both super-resolution image enhancement from low-resolution images and characterization of both cells and nuclei from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained breast cancer histopathological images by using a combination of generator and discriminator networks so-called super-resolution generative adversarial network-based on aggregated residual transformation (SRGAN-ResNeXt) to facilitate cancer diagnosis in low resource settings. The results provide high enhancement in image quality where the peak signal-to-noise ratio and structural similarity of our network results are over 30 dB and 0.93, respectively. The derived performance is superior to the results obtained from both the bicubic interpolation and the well-known SRGAN deep-learning methods. In addition, another custom CNN is used to perform image segmentation from the generated high-resolution breast cancer images derived with our model with an average Intersection over Union of 0.869 and an average dice similarity coefficient of 0.893 for the H&E image segmentation results. Finally, we propose the jointly trained SRGAN-ResNeXt and Inception U-net Models, which applied the weights from the individually trained SRGAN-ResNeXt and inception U-net models as the pre-trained weights for transfer learning. The jointly trained model’s results are progressively improved and promising. We anticipate these custom CNNs can help resolve the inaccessibility of advanced microscopes or whole slide imaging (WSI) systems to acquire high-resolution images from low-performance microscopes located in remote-constraint settings. 

   more » « less
3. Issues in the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Results

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB47826.2019.9037840  

   Jean-Paul, S. ; Elseify, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2019 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)

   The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should produce identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues. 

   more » « less
4. Dense Transformer Networks for Brain Electron Microscopy Image Segmentation

   https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/401  

   Li, Jun ; Chen, Yongjun ; Cai, Lei ; Davidson, Ian ; Ji, Shuiwang ( August 2019 , Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

   The key idea of current deep learning methods for dense prediction is to apply a model on a regular patch centered on each pixel to make pixel-wise predictions. These methods are limited in the sense that the patches are determined by network architecture instead of learned from data. In this work, we propose the dense transformer networks, which can learn the shapes and sizes of patches from data. The dense transformer networks employ an encoder-decoder architecture, and a pair of dense transformer modules are inserted into each of the encoder and decoder paths. The novelty of this work is that we provide technical solutions for learning the shapes and sizes of patches from data and efficiently restoring the spatial correspondence required for dense prediction. The proposed dense transformer modules are differentiable, thus the entire network can be trained. We apply the proposed networks on biological image segmentation tasks and show superior performance is achieved in comparison to baseline methods.

    

   more » « less
5. Why Is the Video Analytics Accuracy Fluctuating, and What Can We Do About It?

   Sibendu Paul ; Kunal Rao ; Giuseppe Coviello ; Murugan Sankaradas ; Oliver Po ; Y. Charlie Hu ; Srimat Chakradhar ( October 2022 , Lecture notes in computer science)

   It is a common practice to think of a video as a sequence of images (frames), and re-use deep neural network models that are trained only on images for similar analytics tasks on videos. In this paper, we show that this “leap of faith” that deep learning models that work well on images will also work well on videos is actually flawed.We show that even when a video camera is viewing a scene that is not changing in any humanperceptible way, and we control for external factors like video compression and environment (lighting), the accuracy of video analytics application fluctuates noticeably. These fluctuations occur because successive frames produced by the video camera may look similar visually, but are perceived quite differently by the video analytics applications.We observed that the root cause for these fluctuations is the dynamic camera parameter changes that a video camera automatically makes in order to capture and produce a visually pleasing video. The camera inadvertently acts as an “unintentional adversary” because these slight changes in the image pixel values in consecutive frames, as we show, have a noticeably adverse impact on the accuracy of insights from video analytics tasks that re-use image-trained deep learning models. To address this inadvertent adversarial effect from the camera, we explore the use of transfer learning techniques to improve learning in video analytics tasks through the transfer of knowledge from learning on image analytics tasks. Our experiments with a number of different cameras, and a variety of different video analytics tasks, show that the inadvertent adversarial effect from the camera can be noticeably offset by quickly re-training the deep learning models using transfer learning. In particular, we show that our newly trained Yolov5 model reduces fluctuation in object detection across frames, which leads to better tracking of objects (∼40% fewer mistakes in tracking). Our paper also provides new directions and techniques to mitigate the camera’s adversarial effect on deep learning models used for video analytics applications. 

   more » « less