In situ digital inline holography is a technique which can be used to acquire high‐resolution imagery of plankton and examine their spatial and temporal distributions within the water column in a nonintrusive manner. However, for effective expert identification of an organism from digital holographic imagery, it is necessary to apply a computationally expensive numerical reconstruction algorithm. This lengthy process inhibits real‐time monitoring of plankton distributions. Deep learning methods, such as convolutional neural networks, applied to interference patterns of different organisms from minimally processed holograms can eliminate the need for reconstruction and accomplish real‐time computation. In this article, we integrate deep learning methods with digital inline holography to create a rapid and accurate plankton classification network for 10 classes of organisms that are commonly seen in our data sets. We describe the procedure from preprocessing to classification. Our network achieves 93.8% accuracy when applied to a manually classified testing data set. Upon further application of a probability filter to eliminate false classification, the average precision and recall are 96.8% and 95.0%, respectively. Furthermore, the network was applied to 7500 in situ holograms collected at East Sound in Washington during a vertical profile to characterize depth distribution of the local diatoms. The results are in agreement with simultaneously recorded independent chlorophyll concentration depth profiles. This lightweight network exemplifies its capability for real‐time, high‐accuracy plankton classification and it has the potential to be deployed on imaging instruments for long‐term in situ plankton monitoring.
The rise of in situ plankton imaging systems, particularly high‐volume imagers such as the In Situ Ichthyoplankton Imaging System, has increased the need for fast processing and accurate classification tools that can identify a high diversity of organisms and nonliving particles of biological origin. Previous methods for automated classification have yielded moderate results that either can resolve few groups at high accuracy or many groups at relatively low accuracy. However, with the advent of new deep learning tools such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), the automated identification of plankton images can be vastly improved. Here, we describe an image processing procedure that includes preprocessing, segmentation, classification, and postprocessing for the accurate identification of 108 classes of plankton using spatially sparse CNNs. Following a filtering process to remove images with low classification scores, a fully random evaluation of the classification showed that average precision was 84% and recall was 40% for all groups. Reliably classifying rare biological classes was difficult, so after excluding the 12 rarest taxa, classification accuracy for the remaining biological groups became > 90%. This method provides proof of concept for the effectiveness of an automated classification scheme using deep‐learning methods, which can be applied to a range of plankton or biological imaging systems, with the eventual application in a variety of ecological monitoring and fisheries management contexts.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10078350
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Limnology and Oceanography: Methods
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 12
- ISSN:
- 1541-5856
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 814-827
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
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
-
The small sizes of most marine plankton necessitate that plankton sampling occur on fine spatial scales, yet our questions often span large spatial areas. Underwater imaging can provide a solution to this sampling conundrum but collects large quantities of data that require an automated approach to image analysis. Machine learning for plankton classification, and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure, are critical to rapid image processing; however, these assets, especially HPC infrastructure, are only available post-cruise leading to an ‘after-the-fact’ view of plankton community structure. To be responsive to the often-ephemeral nature of oceanographic features and species assemblages in highly dynamic current systems, real-time data are key for adaptive oceanographic sampling. Here we used the new In-situ Ichthyoplankton Imaging System-3 (ISIIS-3) in the Northern California Current (NCC) in conjunction with an edge server to classify imaged plankton in real-time into 170 classes. This capability together with data visualization in a heavy.ai dashboard makes adaptive real-time decision-making and sampling at sea possible. Dual ISIIS-Deep-focus Particle Imager (DPI) cameras sample 180 L s -1 , leading to >10 GB of video per min. Imaged organisms are in the size range of 250 µm to 15 cm and include abundant crustaceans, fragile taxa (e.g., hydromedusae, salps), faster swimmers (e.g., krill), and rarer taxa (e.g., larval fishes). A deep learning pipeline deployed on the edge server used multithreaded CPU-based segmentation and GPU-based classification to process the imagery. AVI videos contain 50 sec of data and can contain between 23,000 - 225,000 particle and plankton segments. Processing one AVI through segmentation and classification takes on average 3.75 mins, depending on biological productivity. A heavyDB database monitors for newly processed data and is linked to a heavy.ai dashboard for interactive data visualization. We describe several examples where imaging, AI, and data visualization enable adaptive sampling that can have a transformative effect on oceanography. We envision AI-enabled adaptive sampling to have a high impact on our ability to resolve biological responses to important oceanographic features in the NCC, such as oxygen minimum zones, or harmful algal bloom thin layers, which affect the health of the ecosystem, fisheries, and local communities.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Advances in both hardware and software are enabling rapid proliferation of in situ plankton imaging methods, requiring more effective machine learning approaches to image classification. Deep Learning methods, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), show marked improvement over traditional feature‐based supervised machine learning algorithms, but require careful optimization of hyperparameters and adequate training sets. Here, we document some best practices in applying CNNs to zooplankton and marine snow images and note where our results differ from contemporary Deep Learning findings in other domains. We boost the performance of CNN classifiers by incorporating metadata of different types and illustrate how to assimilate metadata beyond simple concatenation. We utilize both geotemporal (e.g., sample depth, location, time of day) and hydrographic (e.g., temperature, salinity, chlorophyll
a ) metadata and show that either type by itself, or both combined, can substantially reduce error rates. Incorporation of context metadata also boosts performance of the feature‐based classifiers we evaluated: Random Forest, Extremely Randomized Trees, Gradient Boosted Classifier, Support Vector Machines, and Multilayer Perceptron. For our assessments, we use an original data set of 350,000 in situ images (roughly 50% marine snow and 50% non‐snow sorted into 26 categories) from a novel in situZooglider . We document asymptotically increasing performance with more computationally intensive techniques, such as substantially deeper networks and artificially augmented data sets. Our best model achieves 92.3% accuracy with our 27‐class data set. We provide guidance for further refinements that are likely to provide additional gains in classifier accuracy. -
more » « less
Abstract Modern in situ digital imaging systems collect vast numbers of images of marine organisms and suspended particles. Automated methods to classify objects in these images – largely supervised machine learning techniques – are now used to deal with this onslaught of biological data. Though such techniques can minimize the human cost of analyzing the data, they also have important limitations. In training automated classifiers, we implicitly program them with an inflexible understanding of the environment they are observing. When the relationship between the classifier and the population changes, the computer's performance degrades, potentially decreasing the accuracy of the estimate of community composition. This limitation of automated classifiers is known as “dataset shift.” Here, we describe techniques for addressing dataset shift. We then apply them to the output of a binary deep neural network searching for diatom chains in data generated by the Scripps Plankton Camera System (SPCS) on the Scripps Pier. In particular, we describe a supervised quantification approach to adjust a classifier's output using a small number of human corrected images to estimate the system error in a time frame of interest. This method yielded an 80% improvement in mean absolute error over the raw classifier output on a set of 41 independent samples from the SPCS. The technique can be extended to adjust the output of multi‐category classifiers and other in situ observing systems.
