More Like this

1. Community detection in the human connectome: Method types, differences and their impact on inference

   https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26669  

   Brooks, Skylar J. ; Jones, Victoria O. ; Wang, Haotian ; Deng, Chengyuan ; Golding, Staunton G. H. ; Lim, Jethro ; Gao, Jie ; Daoutidis, Prodromos ; Stamoulis, Catherine ( March 2024 , Human Brain Mapping)

   Community structure is a fundamental topological characteristic of optimally organized brain networks. Currently, there is no clear standard or systematic approach for selecting the most appropriate community detection method. Furthermore, the impact of method choice on the accuracy and robustness of estimated communities (and network modularity), as well as method‐dependent relationships between network communities and cognitive and other individual measures, are not well understood. This study analyzed large datasets of real brain networks (estimated from resting‐state fMRI from = 5251 pre/early adolescents in the adolescent brain cognitive development [ABCD] study), and = 5338 synthetic networks with heterogeneous, data‐inspired topologies, with the goal to investigate and compare three classes of community detection methods: (i) modularity maximization‐based (Newman and Louvain), (ii) probabilistic (Bayesian inference within the framework of stochastic block modeling (SBM)), and (iii) geometric (based on graph Ricci flow). Extensive comparisons between methods and their individual accuracy (relative to the ground truth in synthetic networks), and reliability (when applied to multiple fMRI runs from the same brains) suggest that the underlying brain network topology plays a critical role in the accuracy, reliability and agreement of community detection methods. Consistent method (dis)similarities, and their correlations with topological properties, were estimated across fMRI runs. Based on synthetic graphs, most methods performed similarly and had comparable high accuracy only in some topological regimes, specifically those corresponding to developed connectomes with at least quasi‐optimal community organization. In contrast, in densely and/or weakly connected networks with difficult to detect communities, the methods yielded highly dissimilar results, with Bayesian inference within SBM having significantly higher accuracy compared to all others. Associations between method‐specific modularity and demographic, anthropometric, physiological and cognitive parameters showed mostly method invariance but some method dependence as well. Although method sensitivity to different levels of community structure may in part explain method‐dependent associations between modularity estimates and parameters of interest, method dependence also highlights potential issues of reliability and reproducibility. These findings suggest that a probabilistic approach, such as Bayesian inference in the framework of SBM, may provide consistently reliable estimates of community structure across network topologies. In addition, to maximize robustness of biological inferences, identified network communities and their cognitive, behavioral and other correlates should be confirmed with multiple reliable detection methods.

    

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Continental Scale Hydrostratigraphy: Basin‐Scale Testing of Alternative Data‐Driven Approaches

   https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13357  

   Tijerina‐Kreuzer, Danielle ; Swilley, Jackson S. ; Tran, Hoang V. ; Zhang, Jun ; West, Benjamin ; Yang, Chen ; Condon, Laura E. ; Maxwell, Reed M. ( October 2023 , Groundwater)

   Integrated hydrological modeling is an effective method for understanding interactions between parts of the hydrologic cycle, quantifying water resources, and furthering knowledge of hydrologic processes. However, these models are dependent on robust and accurate datasets that physically represent spatial characteristics as model inputs. This study evaluates multiple data‐driven approaches for estimating hydraulic conductivity and subsurface properties at the continental‐scale, constructed from existing subsurface dataset components. Each subsurface configuration represents upper (unconfined) hydrogeology, lower (confined) hydrogeology, and the presence of a vertical flow barrier. Configurations are tested in two large‐scale U.S. watersheds using an integrated model. Model results are compared to observed streamflow and steady state water table depth (WTD). We provide model results for a range of configurations and show that both WTD and surface water partitioning are important indicators of performance. We also show that geology data source, total subsurface depth, anisotropy, and inclusion of a vertical flow barrier are the most important considerations for subsurface configurations. While a range of configurations proved viable, we provide a recommended Selected National Configuration 1 km resolution subsurface dataset for use in distributed large‐and continental‐scale hydrologic modeling.

    

   more » « less
4. Geometric wavelet scattering on graphs and manifolds

   https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2529615  

   Gao, Feng ; Hirn, Matthew ; Perlmutter, Michael ; Wolf, Guy ( September 2019 , Proceedings SPIE 11138, Wavelets and Sparsity XVIII)

   Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are revolutionizing imaging science for two- and three-dimensional images over Euclidean domains. However, many data sets are intrinsically non-Euclidean and are better modeled through other mathematical structures, such as graphs or manifolds. This state of affairs has led to the development of geometric deep learning, which refers to a body of research that aims to translate the principles of CNNs to these non-Euclidean structures. In the process, various challenges have arisen, including how to define such geometric networks, how to compute and train them efficiently, and what are their mathematical properties. In this letter we describe the geometric wavelet scattering transform, which is a type of geometric CNN for graphs and manifolds consisting of alternating multiscale geometric wavelet transforms and nonlinear activation functions. As the name suggests, the geometric wavelet scattering transform is an adaptation of the Euclidean wavelet scattering transform, first introduced by S. Mallat, to graph and manifold data. Like its Euclidean counterpart, the geometric wavelet scattering transform has several desirable properties. In the manifold setting these properties include isometric invariance up to a user specified scale and stability to small diffeomorphisms. Numerical results on manifold and graph data sets, including graph and manifold classification tasks as well as others, illustrate the practical utility of the approach. 

   more » « less
5. Simple Analytical Expressions for Steady-State Vapor Growth and Collision–Coalescence Particle Size Distribution Parameter Profiles

   https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-23-0052.1  

   Dunnavan, Edwin L. ; Ryzhkov, Alexander V. ( October 2023 , Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences)

   This study derives simple analytical expressions for the theoretical height profiles of particle number concentrations (N_t) and mean volume diameters (D_m) during the steady-state balance of vapor growth and collision–coalescence with sedimentation. These equations are general for both rain and snow gamma size distributions with size-dependent power-law functions that dictate particle fall speeds and masses. For collision–coalescence only,N_t(D_m) decreases (increases) as an exponential function of the radar reflectivity difference between two height layers. For vapor deposition only,D_mincreases as a generalized power law of this reflectivity difference. Simultaneous vapor deposition and collision–coalescence under steady-state conditions with conservation of number, mass, and reflectivity fluxes lead to a coupled set of first-order, nonlinear ordinary differential equations forN_tandD_m. The solutions to these coupled equations are generalized power-law functions of heightzforD_m(z) andN_t(z) whereby each variable is related to one another with an exponent that is independent of collision–coalescence efficiency. Compared to observed profiles derived from descending in situ aircraft Lagrangian spiral profiles from the CRYSTAL-FACE field campaign, these analytical solutions can on average capture the height profiles ofN_tandD_mwithin 8% and 4% of observations, respectively. Steady-state model projections of radar retrievals aloft are shown to produce the correct rapid enhancement of surface snowfall compared to the lowest-available radar retrievals from 500 m MSL. Future studies can utilize these equations alongside radar measurements to estimateN_tandD_mbelow radar tilt elevations and to estimate uncertain microphysical parameters such as collision–coalescence efficiencies.

   While complex numerical models are often used to describe weather phenomenon, sometimes simple equations can instead provide equally good or comparable results. Thus, these simple equations can be used in place of more complicated models in certain situations and this replacement can allow for computationally efficient and elegant solutions. This study derives such simple equations in terms of exponential and power-law mathematical functions that describe how the average size and total number of snow or rain particles change at different atmospheric height levels due to growth from the vapor phase and aggregation (the sticking together) of these particles balanced with their fallout from clouds. We catalog these mathematical equations for different assumptions of particle characteristics and we then test these equations using spirally descending aircraft observations and ground-based measurements. Overall, we show that these mathematical equations, despite their simplicity, are capable of accurately describing the magnitude and shape of observed height and time series profiles of particle sizes and numbers. These equations can be used by researchers and forecasters along with radar measurements to improve the understanding of precipitation and the estimation of its properties.

    

   more » « less