skip to main content

We consider an MRI reconstruction problem with input of k-space data at a very low undersampled rate. This can prac- tically benefit patient due to reduced time of MRI scan, but it is also challenging since quality of reconstruction may be compromised. Currently, deep learning based methods dom- inate MRI reconstruction over traditional approaches such as Compressed Sensing, but they rarely show satisfactory performance in the case of low undersampled k-space data. One explanation is that these methods treat channel-wise fea- tures equally, which results in degraded representation ability of the neural network. To solve this problem, we propose a new model called MRI Cascaded Channel-wise Attention Network (MICCAN), highlighted by three components: (i) a variant of U-net with Channel-wise Attention (UCA) mod- ule, (ii) a long skip connection and (iii) a combined loss. Our model is able to attend to salient information by filtering irrelevant features and also concentrate on high-frequency in- formation by enforcing low-frequency information bypassed to the final output. We conduct both quantitative evaluation and qualitative analysis of our method on a cardiac dataset. The experiment shows that our method achieves very promis- ing results in terms of three common metrics on the MRI reconstruction with more » low undersampled k-space data. Code is public available « less
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019)
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Chen, Xi (Ed.)
    In patients with dense breasts or at high risk of breast cancer, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is a highly sensitive diagnostic tool. However, its specificity is highly variable and sometimes low; quantitative measurements of contrast uptake parameters may improve specificity and mitigate this issue. To improve diagnostic accuracy, data need to be captured at high spatial and temporal resolution. While many methods exist to accelerate MRI temporal resolution, not all are optimized to capture breast DCE-MRI dynamics. We propose a novel, flexible, and powerful framework for the reconstruction of highly-undersampled DCE-MRI data: enhancement-constrained acceleration (ECA). Enhancement-constrained acceleration uses anmore »assumption of smooth enhancement at small time-scale to estimate points of smooth enhancement curves in small time intervals at each voxel. This method is tested in silico with physiologically realistic virtual phantoms, simulating state-of-the-art ultrafast acquisitions at 3.5s temporal resolution reconstructed at 0.25s temporal resolution (demo code available here). Virtual phantoms were developed from real patient data and parametrized in continuous time with arterial input function (AIF) models and lesion enhancement functions. Enhancement-constrained acceleration was compared to standard ultrafast reconstruction in estimating the bolus arrival time and initial slope of enhancement from reconstructed images. We found that the ECA method reconstructed images at 0.25s temporal resolution with no significant loss in image fidelity, a 4x reduction in the error of bolus arrival time estimation in lesions ( p < 0.01) and 11x error reduction in blood vessels ( p < 0.01). Our results suggest that ECA is a powerful and versatile tool for breast DCE-MRI.« less
  2. Abstract
    Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016More>>
  3. 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 describemore »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: 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. [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. [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. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: [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. [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. [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. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. [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.« less
  4. Abstract Motivation Consider a simple computational problem. The inputs are (i) the set of mixed reads generated from a sample that combines two organisms and (ii) separate sets of reads for several reference genomes of known origins. The goal is to find the two organisms that constitute the mixed sample. When constituents are absent from the reference set, we seek to phylogenetically position them with respect to the underlying tree of the reference species. This simple yet fundamental problem (which we call phylogenetic double-placement) has enjoyed surprisingly little attention in the literature. As genome skimming (low-pass sequencing of genomes atmore »low coverage, precluding assembly) becomes more prevalent, this problem finds wide-ranging applications in areas as varied as biodiversity research, food production and provenance, and evolutionary reconstruction. Results We introduce a model that relates distances between a mixed sample and reference species to the distances between constituents and reference species. Our model is based on Jaccard indices computed between each sample represented as k-mer sets. The model, built on several assumptions and approximations, allows us to formalize the phylogenetic double-placement problem as a non-convex optimization problem that decomposes mixture distances and performs phylogenetic placement simultaneously. Using a variety of techniques, we are able to solve this optimization problem numerically. We test the resulting method, called MIxed Sample Analysis tool (MISA), on a varied set of simulated and biological datasets. Despite all the assumptions used, the method performs remarkably well in practice. Availability and implementation The software and data are available at and Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.« less
  5. With the acceleration of ICT technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm, smart residential environments , also known as smart homes are becoming increasingly common. These environments have significant potential for the development of intelligent energy management systems, and have therefore attracted significant attention from both academia and industry. An enabling building block for these systems is the ability of obtaining energy consumption at the appliance-level. This information is usually inferred from electric signals data (e.g., current) collected by a smart meter or a smart outlet, a problem known as appliance recognition . Several previous approaches for appliance recognitionmore »have proposed load disaggregation techniques for smart meter data. However, these approaches are often very inaccurate for low consumption and multi-state appliances. Recently, Machine Learning (ML) techniques have been proposed for appliance recognition. These approaches are mainly based on passive MLs, thus requiring pre-labeled data to be trained. This makes such approaches unable to rapidly adapt to the constantly changing availability and heterogeneity of appliances on the market. In a home setting scenario, it is natural to consider the involvement of users in the labeling process, as appliances’ electric signatures are collected. This type of learning falls into the category of Stream-based Active Learning (SAL). SAL has been mainly investigated assuming the presence of an expert , always available and willing to label the collected samples. Nevertheless, a home user may lack such availability, and in general present a more erratic and user-dependent behavior. In this paper, we develop a SAL algorithm, called K -Active-Neighbors (KAN), for the problem of household appliance recognition. Differently from previous approaches, KAN jointly learns the user behavior and the appliance signatures. KAN dynamically adjusts the querying strategy to increase accuracy by considering the user availability as well as the quality of the collected signatures. Such quality is defined as a combination of informativeness , representativeness , and confidence score of the signature compared to the current knowledge. To test KAN versus state-of-the-art approaches, we use real appliance data collected by a low-cost Arduino-based smart outlet as well as the ECO smart home dataset. Furthermore, we use a real dataset to model user behavior. Results show that KAN is able to achieve high accuracy with minimal data, i.e., signatures of short length and collected at low frequency.« less