skip to main content

Title: Time-Aware Subgroup Matrix Decomposition: Imputing Missing Data Using Forecasting Events
Deep neural network models, especially Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), have shown great success in analyzing Electronic Health Records (EHRs) due to their ability to capture temporal dependencies in time series data. When applying the deep learning models to EHRs, we are generally confronted with two major challenges: high rate of missingness and time irregularity. Motivated by the original PACIFIER framework which utilized matrix decomposition for data imputation, we applied and further extended it by including three components: forecasting future events, a time-aware mechanism, and a subgroup basis approach. We evaluated the proposed framework with real-world EHRs which consists of 52,919 visits and 4,224,567 events on a task of early prediction of septic shock. We compared our work against multiple baselines including the original PACIFIER using both LSTM and Time-aware LSTM (T-LSTM). Experimental results showed that our proposed framework significantly outperformed all competitive baseline approaches. More importantly, the extracted interpretative latent patterns from subgroups could shed some lights for clinicians to discover the progression of septic shock patients.
Authors:
Award ID(s):
1651909
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10136459
Journal Name:
IEEE International Conference on Big Data
ISSN:
2639-1589
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Modeling patient disease progression using Electronic Health Records (EHRs) is critical to assist clinical decision making. Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) is an effective model to handle sequential data, such as EHRs, but it encounters two major limitations when applied to EHRs: it is unable to interpret the prediction results and it ignores the irregular time intervals between consecutive events. To tackle these limitations, we propose an attention-based time-aware LSTM Networks (ATTAIN), to improve the interpretability of LSTM and to identify the critical previous events for current diagnosis by modeling the inherent time irregularity. We validate ATTAIN on modeling the progressionmore »of an extremely challenging disease, septic shock, by using real-world EHRs. Our results demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms the state-of-the-art models such as RETAIN and T-LSTM. Also, the generated interpretative time-aware attention weights shed some lights on the progression behaviors of septic shock.« less
  2. 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: 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.« less
  3. Accurate predictions of water temperature are the foundation for many decisions and regulations, with direct impacts on water quality, fishery yields, and power production. Building accurate broad-scale models for lake temperature prediction remains challenging in practice due to the variability in the data distribution across different lake systems monitored by static and time-series data. In this paper, to tackle the above challenges, we propose a novel machine learning based approach for integrating static and time-series data in deep recurrent models, which we call Invertibility-Aware-Long Short-Term Memory(IA-LSTM), and demonstrate its effectiveness in predicting lake temperature. Our proposed method integrates components ofmore »the Invertible Network and LSTM to better predict temperature profiles (forward modeling) and infer the static features (i.e., inverse modeling) that can eventually enhance the prediction when static variables are missing. We evaluate our method on predicting the temperature profile of 450 lakes in the Midwestern U.S. and report a relative improvement of 4\% to capture data heterogeneity and simultaneously outperform baseline predictions by 12\% when static features are unavailable.« less
  4. The COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease 2019) pandemic has had profound global consequences on health, economic, social, behavioral, and almost every major aspect of human life. Therefore, it is of great importance to model COVID-19 and other pandemics in terms of the broader social contexts in which they take place. We present the architecture of an artificial intelligence enhanced COVID-19 analysis (in short AICov), which provides an integrative deep learning framework for COVID-19 forecasting with population covariates, some of which may serve as putative risk factors. We have integrated multiple different strategies into AICov, including the ability to use deep learningmore »strategies based on Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and event modeling. To demonstrate our approach, we have introduced a framework that integrates population covariates from multiple sources. Thus, AICov not only includes data on COVID-19 cases and deaths but, more importantly, the population’s socioeconomic, health, and behavioral risk factors at their specific locations. The compiled data are fed into AICov, and thus we obtain improved prediction by the integration of the data to our model as compared to one that only uses case and death data. As we use deep learning our models adapt over time while learning the model from past data.« less
  5. Raman, B. ; Murala, S. ; Chowdhury, A. ; Dhall, A. ; Goyal, P. (Ed.)
    Using offline training schemes, researchers have tackled the event segmentation problem by providing full or weak-supervision through manually annotated labels or self-supervised epoch-based training. Most works consider videos that are at most 10’s of minutes long. We present a self-supervised perceptual prediction framework capable of temporal event segmentation by building stable representations of objects over time and demonstrate it on long videos, spanning several days at 25 FPS. The approach is deceptively simple but quite effective. We rely on predictions of high-level features computed by a standard deep learning backbone. For prediction, we use an LSTM, augmented with an attentionmore »mechanism, trained in a self-supervised manner using the prediction error. The self-learned attention maps effectively localize and track the event-related objects in each frame. The proposed approach does not require labels. It requires only a single pass through the video, with no separate training set. Given the lack of datasets of very long videos, we demonstrate our method on video from 10 d (254 h) of continuous wildlife monitoring data that we had collected with required permissions. We find that the approach is robust to various environmental conditions such as day/night conditions, rain, sharp shadows, and windy conditions. For the task of temporally locating events at the activity level, we had an 80% activity recall rate for one false activity detection every 50 min. We will make the dataset, which is the first of its kind, and the code available to the research community. Project page is available at https://ramymounir.com/publications/EventSegmentation/.« less