More Like this

1. 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
2. Uncovering Footprints of Natural Selection Through Spectral Analysis of Genomic Summary Statistics

   https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msad157  

   Arnab, Sandipan Paul ; Amin, Md Ruhul ; DeGiorgio, Michael ( July 2023 , Molecular Biology and Evolution)

   Kim, Yuseob (Ed.)

   Abstract Natural selection leaves a spatial pattern along the genome, with a haplotype distribution distortion near the selected locus that fades with distance. Evaluating the spatial signal of a population-genetic summary statistic across the genome allows for patterns of natural selection to be distinguished from neutrality. Considering the genomic spatial distribution of multiple summary statistics is expected to aid in uncovering subtle signatures of selection. In recent years, numerous methods have been devised that consider genomic spatial distributions across summary statistics, utilizing both classical machine learning and deep learning architectures. However, better predictions may be attainable by improving the way in which features are extracted from these summary statistics. We apply wavelet transform, multitaper spectral analysis, and S-transform to summary statistic arrays to achieve this goal. Each analysis method converts one-dimensional summary statistic arrays to two-dimensional images of spectral analysis, allowing simultaneous temporal and spectral assessment. We feed these images into convolutional neural networks and consider combining models using ensemble stacking. Our modeling framework achieves high accuracy and power across a diverse set of evolutionary settings, including population size changes and test sets of varying sweep strength, softness, and timing. A scan of central European whole-genome sequences recapitulated well-established sweep candidates and predicted novel cancer-associated genes as sweeps with high support. Given that this modeling framework is also robust to missing genomic segments, we believe that it will represent a welcome addition to the population-genomic toolkit for learning about adaptive processes from genomic data. 

   more » « less
3. Adaptive and nonadaptive causes of heterogeneity in genetic differentiation across the Mimulus guttatus genome

   https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16087  

   Colicchio, Jack M. ; Hamm, Lauren N. ; Verdonk, Hannah E. ; Kooyers, Nicholas J. ; Blackman, Benjamin K. ( August 2021 , Molecular Ecology)

   Genetic diversity becomes structured among populations over time due to genetic drift and divergent selection. Although population structure is often treated as a uniform underlying factor, recent resequencing studies of wild populations have demonstrated that diversity in many regions of the genome may be structured quite dissimilar to the genome‐wide pattern. Here, we explored the adaptive and nonadaptive causes of such genomic heterogeneity using population‐level, whole genome resequencing data obtained from annualMimulus guttatusindividuals collected across a rugged environment landscape. We found substantial variation in how genetic differentiation is structured both within and between chromosomes, although, in contrast to other studies, known inversion polymorphisms appear to serve only minor roles in this heterogeneity. In addition, much of the genome can be clustered into eight among‐population genetic differentiation patterns, but only two of these clusters are particularly consistent with patterns of isolation by distance. By performing genotype‐environment association analysis, we also identified genomic intervals where local adaptation to specific climate factors has accentuated genetic differentiation among populations, and candidate genes in these windows indicate climate adaptation may proceed through changes affecting specialized metabolism, drought resistance, and development. Finally, by integrating our findings with previous studies, we show that multiple aspects of plant reproductive biology may be common targets of balancing selection and that variants historically involved in climate adaptation among populations have probably also fuelled rapid adaptation to microgeographic environmental variation within sites.

    

   more » « less
4. Identifying and Classifying Shared Selective Sweeps from Multilocus Data

   https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.120.303137  

   Harris, AM ; DeGiorgio, M ( May 2020 , Genetics)

   Positive selection causes beneficial alleles to rise to high frequency, resulting in a selective sweep of the diversity surrounding the selected sites. Accordingly, the signature of a selective sweep in an ancestral population may still remain in its descendants. Identifying signatures of selection in the ancestor that are shared among its descendants is important to contextualize the timing of a sweep, but few methods exist for this purpose. We introduce the statistic SS-H12, which can identify genomic regions under shared positive selection across populations and is based on the theory of the expected haplotype homozygosity statistic H12, which detects recent hard and soft sweeps from the presence of high-frequency haplotypes. SS-H12 is distinct from comparable statistics because it requires a minimum of only two populations, and properly identifies and differentiates between independent convergent sweeps and true ancestral sweeps, with high power and robustness to a variety of demographic models. Furthermore, we can apply SS-H12 in conjunction with the ratio of statistics we term Embedded Image and Embedded Image to further classify identified shared sweeps as hard or soft. Finally, we identified both previously reported and novel shared sweep candidates from human whole-genome sequences. Previously reported candidates include the well-characterized ancestral sweeps at LCT and SLC24A5 in Indo-Europeans, as well as GPHN worldwide. Novel candidates include an ancestral sweep at RGS18 in sub-Saharan Africans involved in regulating the platelet response and implicated in sudden cardiac death, and a convergent sweep at C2CD5 between European and East Asian populations that may explain their different insulin responses. 

   more » « less
5. Maximum SNP FST Outperforms Full-Window Statistics for Detecting Soft Sweeps in Local Adaptation

   https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evac143  

   da Silva Ribeiro, Tiago ; Galván, José A ; Pool, John E ( October 2022 , Genome Biology and Evolution)

   Betancourt, Andrea (Ed.)

   Abstract Local adaptation can lead to elevated genetic differentiation at the targeted genetic variant and nearby sites. Selective sweeps come in different forms, and depending on the initial and final frequencies of a favored variant, very different patterns of genetic variation may be produced. If local selection favors an existing variant that had already recombined onto multiple genetic backgrounds, then the width of elevated genetic differentiation (high FST) may be too narrow to detect using a typical windowed genome scan, even if the targeted variant becomes highly differentiated. We, therefore, used a simulation approach to investigate the power of SNP-level FST (specifically, the maximum SNP FST value within a window, or FST_MaxSNP) to detect diverse scenarios of local adaptation, and compared it against whole-window FST and the Comparative Haplotype Identity statistic. We found that FST_MaxSNP had superior power to detect complete or mostly complete soft sweeps, but lesser power than full-window statistics to detect partial hard sweeps. Nonetheless, the power of FST_MaxSNP depended highly on sample size, and confident outliers depend on robust precautions and quality control. To investigate the relative enrichment of FST_MaxSNP outliers from real data, we applied the two FST statistics to a panel of Drosophila melanogaster populations. We found that FST_MaxSNP had a genome-wide enrichment of outliers compared with demographic expectations, and though it yielded a lesser enrichment than window FST, it detected mostly unique outlier genes and functional categories. Our results suggest that FST_MaxSNP is highly complementary to typical window-based approaches for detecting local adaptation, and merits inclusion in future genome scans and methodologies. 

   more » « less