More Like this

1. New scaling relations to compute atom-in-material polarizabilities and dispersion coefficients: part 1. Theory and accuracy

   https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ra03003d  

   Manz, Thomas A. ; Chen, Taoyi ; Cole, Daniel J. ; Limas, Nidia Gabaldon ; Fiszbein, Benjamin ( June 2019 , RSC Advances)

   Polarizabilities and London dispersion forces are important to many chemical processes. Force fields for classical atomistic simulations can be constructed using atom-in-material polarizabilities and C n ( n = 6, 8, 9, 10…) dispersion coefficients. This article addresses the key question of how to efficiently assign these parameters to constituent atoms in a material so that properties of the whole material are better reproduced. We develop a new set of scaling laws and computational algorithms (called MCLF) to do this in an accurate and computationally efficient manner across diverse material types. We introduce a conduction limit upper bound and m -scaling to describe the different behaviors of surface and buried atoms. We validate MCLF by comparing results to high-level benchmarks for isolated neutral and charged atoms, diverse diatomic molecules, various polyatomic molecules ( e.g. , polyacenes, fullerenes, and small organic and inorganic molecules), and dense solids (including metallic, covalent, and ionic). We also present results for the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme complexed with an inhibitor molecule. MCLF provides the non-directionally screened polarizabilities required to construct force fields, the directionally-screened static polarizability tensor components and eigenvalues, and environmentally screened C 6 coefficients. Overall, MCLF has improved accuracy compared to the TS-SCS method. For TS-SCS, we compared charge partitioning methods and show DDEC6 partitioning yields more accurate results than Hirshfeld partitioning. MCLF also gives approximations for C 8 , C 9 , and C 10 dispersion coefficients and quantum Drude oscillator parameters. This method should find widespread applications to parameterize classical force fields and density functional theory (DFT) + dispersion methods. 

   more » « less
2. Identifying misbonded atoms in the 2019 CoRE metal–organic framework database

   https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ra02498h  

   Chen, Taoyi ; Manz, Thomas A. ( July 2020 , RSC Advances)

   Databases of experimentally-derived metal–organic framework (MOF) crystal structures are useful for large-scale computational screening to identify which MOFs are best-suited for particular applications. However, these crystal structures must be cleaned to identify and/or correct various artifacts. The recently published 2019 CoRE MOF database (Chung et al. , J. Chem. Eng. Data , 2019, 64 , 5985–5998) reported thousands of experimentally-derived crystal structures that were partially cleaned to remove solvent molecules, to identify hundreds of disordered structures (approximately thirty of those were corrected), and to manually correct approximately 100 structures ( e.g. , adding missing hydrogen atoms). Herein, further cleaning of the 2019 CoRE MOF database is performed to identify structures with misbonded or isolated atoms: (i) structures containing an isolated atom, (ii) structures containing atoms too close together ( i.e. , overlapping atoms), (iii) structures containing a misplaced hydrogen atom, (iv) structures containing an under-bonded carbon atom (which might be caused by missing hydrogen atoms), and (v) structures containing an over-bonded carbon atom. This study should not be viewed as the final cleaning of this database, but rather as progress along the way towards the goal of someday achieving a completely cleaned set of experimentally-derived MOF crystal structures. We performed atom typing for all of the accepted structures to identify those structures that can be parameterized by previously reported forcefield precursors (Chen and Manz, RSC Adv ., 2019, 9 , 36492–36507). We report several forcefield precursors ( e.g. , net atomic charges, atom-in-material polarizabilities, atom-in-material dispersion coefficients, electron cloud parameters, etc. ) for more than five thousand MOFs in the 2019 CoRE MOF database. 

   more » « less
3. Progress toward a one-electron model for the non-valence correlation-bound anions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

   https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1075/ac522a  

   Mulvey, Devin M ; Jordan, Kenneth D ( March 2022 , Electronic Structure)

   Abstract A one-electron model Hamiltonian is used to characterize the non-valence correlation-bound (NVCB) anions of hexagonal polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) C 6 n 2 H 6 n ( n = 3–7). The model incorporates atomic electrostatic moments up to the quadrupole, coupled inducible charges and dipoles, and atom-centered repulsive Gaussians to describe the interaction between the excess electron and PAH. These model components are parameterized on and validated against all-electron calculations. Good agreement is found between the static dipole polarizabilities obtained from the model and those from PBE0 density functional theory and second-order Møller–Plesset perturbation theory calculations. In the model, charge flow dominates the in-plane polarizability of PAHs larger than C 54 H 18 , yielding an approximately quadratic scaling of the mean polarizabilty with the number of carbon atoms. Inclusion of electrostatic interactions decreases the electron binding energies for the largest PAHs considered by about 20% and shift charge distribution from above and below the plane of the ring system toward the periphery. Analysis of the electrostatic and polarization interactions provides insight into qualitative trends in the electron binding energy and the charge distribution of the lowest energy NVCB anion. 

   more » « less
4. A collection of forcefield precursors for metal–organic frameworks

   https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ra07327b  

   Chen, Taoyi ; Manz, Thomas A. ( November 2019 , RSC Advances)

   A host of important performance properties for metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) and other complex materials can be calculated by modeling statistical ensembles. The principle challenge is to develop accurate and computationally efficient interaction models for these simulations. Two major approaches are (i) ab initio molecular dynamics in which the interaction model is provided by an exchange–correlation theory ( e.g. , DFT + dispersion functional) and (ii) molecular mechanics in which the interaction model is a parameterized classical force field. The first approach requires further development to improve computational speed. The second approach requires further development to automate accurate forcefield parameterization. Because of the extreme chemical diversity across thousands of MOF structures, this problem is still mostly unsolved today. For example, here we show structures in the 2014 CoRE MOF database contain more than 8 thousand different atom types based on first and second neighbors. Our results showed that atom types based on both first and second neighbors adequately capture the chemical environment, but atom types based on only first neighbors do not. For 3056 MOFs, we used density functional theory (DFT) followed by DDEC6 atomic population analysis to extract a host of important forcefield precursors: partial atomic charges; atom-in-material (AIM) C 6 , C 8 , and C 10 dispersion coefficients; AIM dipole and quadrupole moments; various AIM polarizabilities; quantum Drude oscillator parameters; AIM electron cloud parameters; etc. Electrostatic parameters were validated through comparisons to the DFT-computed electrostatic potential. These forcefield precursors should find widespread applications to developing MOF force fields. 

   more » « less
5. 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