More Like this

1. 66361 TL1 Team Approach to Predicting Response to Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain

   https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.685  

   See, Kyle ; Ho, Rachel ; Coombes, Stephen ; Fang, Ruogu ( March 2021 , Journal of Clinical and Translational Science)

   ABSTRACT IMPACT: Understanding how spinal cord stimulation works and who it works best for will improve clinical trial efficacy and prevent unnecessary surgeries. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an intervention for chronic low back pain where standard interventions fail to provide relief. However, estimates suggest only 58% of patients achieve at least 50% reduction in their pain. There is no non-invasive method for predicting relief provided by SCS. We hypothesize neural activity in the brain can fill this gap. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We tested SCS patients at 3 times points: baseline (pre-surgery), at day 7 during the trial period (post-trial), and 6 months after a permanent system had been implanted. At each time point participants completed 10 minutes of eyes closed, resting electroencephalography (EEG) and self-reported their pain. EEG was collected with the ActiveTwo system and a 128-electrode cap. Patients were grouped based on the percentage change of their pain from baseline to the final visit using a median split (super responders > average responders). Spectral density powerbands were extracted from resting EEG to use as input features for machine learning analyses. We used support vector machines to predict response to SCS. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Baseline and post-trial EEG data predicted SCS response at 6-months with 95.56% and 100% accuracy, respectively. The gamma band had the highest performance in differentiating responders. Post-trial EEG data best differentiated the groups with feature weighted dipoles being more highly localized in sensorimotor cortex. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Understanding how SCS works and who it works best for is the long-term objective of our collaborative research program. These data provide an important first step towards this goal. 

   more » « less
2. Predicting Treatment Outcome in Spinal Cord Stimulation with EEG

   See, Kyle ; July, Rachel ; Coombes, Stephen ; Fang, Ruogu ( October 2021 , Biomedical Engineering Society Annual Meeting)

   Introduction: Back pain is one of the most common causes of pain in the United States. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an intervention for patients with chronic back pain (CBP). However, SCS decreases pain in only 58% of patients and relies on self-reported pain scores as outcome measures. An SCS trial is temporarily implanted for seven days and helps to determine if a permanent SCS is needed. Patients that have a >50% reduction in pain from the trial stimulator makes them eligible for permanent implantation. However, self-reported measures reveal little on how mechanisms in the brain are altered. Other measurements of pain intensity, onset, medication, disabilities, depression, and anxiety have been used with machine learning to predict outcomes with accuracies <70%. We aim to predict long-term SCS responders at 6-months using baseline resting EEG and machine learning. Materials and Methods: We obtained 10-minutes of resting electroencephalography (EEG) and pain questionnaires from nine participants with CBP at two time points: 1) pre-trial baseline. 2) Six months after SCS permanent implant surgery. Subjects were designated as high or moderate responders based on the amount of pain relief provided by the long-term (post six months) SCS, and pain scored on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 intolerable. We used the resting EEG from baseline to predict long-term treatment outcome. Resting EEG data was fed through a pipeline for classification and to map dipole sources. EEG signals were preprocessed using the EEGLAB toolbox. Independent component analysis and dipole fitting were used to linearly unmix the signal and to map dipole sources from the brain. Spectral analysis was performed to obtain the frequency distribution of the signal. Each power band, delta (1-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-13 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and gamma (30-100 Hz), as well as the entire spectrum (1-100 Hz), were used for classification. Furthermore, dipole sources were ranked based on classification feature weights to determine the significance of specific regions in the brain. We used support vector machines to predict pain outcomes. Results and Discussion: We found higher frequency powerbands provide overall classification performance of 88.89%. Differences in power are seen between moderate and high responders in both the frontal and parietal regions for theta, alpha, beta, and the entire spectrum (Fig.1). This can potentially be used to predict patient response to SCS. Conclusions: We found evidence of decreased power in theta, alpha, beta, and entire spectrum in the anterior regions of the parietal cortex and posterior regions of the frontal cortex between moderate and high responders, which can be used for predicting treatment outcomes in long-term pain relief from SCS. Long-term treatment outcome prediction using baseline EEG data has the potential to contribute to decision making in terms of permanent surgery, forgo trial periods, and improve clinical efficiency by beginning to understand the mechanism of action of SCS in the human brain. 

   more » « less
3. 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
4. COMPASS App: A Patient-centered Physiological based Pain Assessment System

   https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192200  

   Zhu, Wenchao ; Liu, Chang ; Yu, Haoxiang ; Guo, Yikang ; Xiao, Yan ; Lin, Yingzi ( September 2023 , Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting)

   Chronic pain patients lack at-home pain assessment and management tools. The existing chronic-pain mobile applications are either solely relying on self-report pain levels or restricted to formal clinical settings. Our app, abbreviated from an NSF-funded project entitled Novel Computational Methods for Continuous Objective Multimodal Pain Assessment Sensing System (COMPASS), is a multi-dimensional pain app that collects physiological signals to predict objective pain levels and trace daily at-home activities by incorporating a daily check-in section. We conducted a usability test with 33 healthy participants under pain conditions. The results provided initial support for the validity of the signals in predicting internalizing pain levels among the participants. With further development and testing, we believe the COMPASS app system has the potential to be used by both patients and clinicians as an additional tool to better assess and manage pain, especially for mobile healthcare applications.

    

   more » « less
5. Quantitative analysis of visually reviewed normal scalp EEG predicts seizure freedom following anterior temporal lobectomy

   https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17257  

   Varatharajah, Yogatheesan ; Joseph, Boney ; Brinkmann, Benjamin ; Morita‐Sherman, Marcia ; Fitzgerald, Zachary ; Vegh, Deborah ; Nair, Dileep ; Burgess, Richard ; Cendes, Fernando ; Jehi, Lara ; et al ( April 2022 , Epilepsia)

   Anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) is a widely performed and successful intervention for drug‐resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). However, up to one third of patients experience seizure recurrence within 1 year after ATL. Despite the extensive literature on presurgical electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities to prognosticate seizure freedom following ATL, the value of quantitative analysis of visually reviewed normal interictal EEG in such prognostication remains unclear. In this retrospective multicenter study, we investigate whether machine learning analysis of normal interictal scalp EEG studies can inform the prediction of postoperative seizure freedom outcomes in patients who have undergone ATL.

   We analyzed normal presurgical scalp EEG recordings from 41 Mayo Clinic (MC) and 23 Cleveland Clinic (CC) patients. We used an unbiased automated algorithm to extract eyes closed awake epochs from scalp EEG studies that were free of any epileptiform activity and then extracted spectral EEG features representing (a) spectral power and (b) interhemispheric spectral coherence in frequencies between 1 and 25 Hz across several brain regions. We analyzed the differences between the seizure‐free and non–seizure‐free patients and employed a Naïve Bayes classifier using multiple spectral features to predict surgery outcomes. We trained the classifier using a leave‐one‐patient‐out cross‐validation scheme within the MC data set and then tested using the out‐of‐sample CC data set. Finally, we compared the predictive performance of normal scalp EEG‐derived features against MRI abnormalities.

   We found that several spectral power and coherence features showed significant differences correlated with surgical outcomes and that they were most pronounced in the 10–25 Hz range. The Naïve Bayes classification based on those features predicted 1‐year seizure freedom following ATL with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.78 and 0.76 for the MC and CC data sets, respectively. Subsequent analyses revealed that (a) interhemispheric spectral coherence features in the 10–25 Hz range provided better predictability than other combinations and (b) normal scalp EEG‐derived features provided superior and potentially distinct predictive value when compared with MRI abnormalities (>10% higher F1 score).

   These results support that quantitative analysis of even a normal presurgical scalp EEG may help prognosticate seizure freedom following ATL in patients with drug‐resistant TLE. Although the mechanism for this result is not known, the scalp EEG spectral and coherence properties predicting seizure freedom may represent activity arising from the neocortex or the networks responsible for temporal lobe seizure generation within vs outside the margins of an ATL.

    

   more » « less