More Like this

1. Cooperative human-machine data extraction from biological collections

   https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience.2016.7870884  

   Alzuru, Icaro ; Matsunaga, Andrea ; Tsugawa, Mauricio ; Fortes, Jose A. ( October 2016 , 2016 IEEE 12th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), Baltimore, MD USA)

   Historical data sources, like medical records or biological collections, consist of unstructured heterogeneous content: handwritten text, different sizes and types of fonts, and text overlapped with lines, images, stamps, and sketches. The information these documents can provide is important, from a historical perspective and mainly because we can learn from it. The automatic digitization of these historical documents is a complex machine learning process that usually produces poor results, requiring costly interventions by experts, who have to transcribe and interpret the content. This paper describes hybrid (Human- and Machine-Intelligent) workflows for scientific data extraction, combining machine-learning and crowdsourcing software elements. Our results demonstrate that the mix of human and machine processes has advantages in data extraction time and quality, when compared to a machine-only workflow. More specifically, we show how OCRopus and Tesseract, two widely used open source Optical Character Recognition (OCR) tools, can improve their accuracy by more than 42%, when text areas are cropped by humans prior to OCR, while the total time can increase or decrease depending on the OCR selection. The digitization of 400 images, with Entomology, Bryophyte, and Lichen specimens, is evaluated following four different approaches: processing the whole specimen image (machine-only), processing crowd cropped labels (hybrid), processing crowd cropped fields (hybrid), and cleaning the machine-only output. As a secondary result, our experiments reveal differences in speed and quality between Tesseract and OCRopus. 

   more » « less
2. On the correlation between second order texture features and human observer detection performance in digital images

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69816-z  

   Nisbett, William H. ; Kavuri, Amar ; Das, Mini ( August 2020 , Scientific Reports)

   Image texture, the relative spatial arrangement of intensity values in an image, encodes valuable information about the scene. As it stands, much of this potential information remains untapped. Understanding how to decipher textural details would afford another method of extracting knowledge of the physical world from images. In this work, we attempt to bridge the gap in research between quantitative texture analysis and the visual perception of textures. The impact of changes in image texture on human observer’s ability to perform signal detection and localization tasks in complex digital images is not understood. We examine this critical question by studying task-based human observer performance in detecting and localizing signals in tomographic breast images. We have also investigated how these changes impact the formation of second-order image texture. We used digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) an FDA approved tomographic X-ray breast imaging method as the modality of choice to show our preliminary results. Our human observer studies involve localization ROC (LROC) studies for low contrast mass detection in DBT. Simulated images are used as they offer the benefit of known ground truth. Our results prove that changes in system geometry or processing leads to changes in image texture magnitudes. We show that the variations in several well-known texture features estimated in digital images correlate with human observer detection–localization performance for signals embedded in them. This insight can allow efficient and practical techniques to identify the best imaging system design and algorithms or filtering tools by examining the changes in these texture features. This concept linking texture feature estimates and task based image quality assessment can be extended to several other imaging modalities and applications as well. It can also offer feedback in system and algorithm designs with a goal to improve perceptual benefits. Broader impact can be in wide array of areas including imaging system design, image processing, data science, machine learning, computer vision, perceptual and vision science. Our results also point to the caution that must be exercised in using these texture features as image-based radiomic features or as predictive markers for risk assessment as they are sensitive to system or image processing changes.

    

   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. Livestock Informatics Toolkit: A Case Study in Visually Characterizing Complex Behavioral Patterns across Multiple Sensor Platforms, Using Novel Unsupervised Machine Learning and Information Theoretic Approaches

   https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010001  

   McVey, Catherine ; Hsieh, Fushing ; Manriquez, Diego ; Pinedo, Pablo ; Horback, Kristina ( January 2022 , Sensors)

   Large and densely sampled sensor datasets can contain a range of complex stochastic structures that are difficult to accommodate in conventional linear models. This can confound attempts to build a more complete picture of an animal’s behavior by aggregating information across multiple asynchronous sensor platforms. The Livestock Informatics Toolkit (LIT) has been developed in R to better facilitate knowledge discovery of complex behavioral patterns across Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) data streams using novel unsupervised machine learning and information theoretic approaches. The utility of this analytical pipeline is demonstrated using data from a 6-month feed trial conducted on a closed herd of 185 mix-parity organic dairy cows. Insights into the tradeoffs between behaviors in time budgets acquired from ear tag accelerometer records were improved by augmenting conventional hierarchical clustering techniques with a novel simulation-based approach designed to mimic the complex error structures of sensor data. These simulations were then repurposed to compress the information in this data stream into robust empirically-determined encodings using a novel pruning algorithm. Nonparametric and semiparametric tests using mutual and pointwise information subsequently revealed complex nonlinear associations between encodings of overall time budgets and the order that cows entered the parlor to be milked. 

   more » « less
5. BEAR: Sketching BFGS Algorithm for Ultra-High Dimensional Feature Selection in Sublinear Memory

   Amirali Aghazadeh, Vipul Gupta ( January 2022 , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research vol 107:75–92)

   We consider feature selection for applications in machine learning where the dimensionality of the data is so large that it exceeds the working memory of the (local) computing machine. Unfortunately, current large-scale sketching algorithms show poor memory-accuracy trade-off in selecting features in high dimensions due to the irreversible collision and accumulation of the stochastic gradient noise in the sketched domain. Here, we develop a second-order feature selection algorithm, called BEAR, which avoids the extra collisions by efficiently storing the second-order stochastic gradients of the celebrated Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shannon (BFGS) algorithm in Count Sketch, using a memory cost that grows sublinearly with the size of the feature vector. BEAR reveals an unexplored advantage of second-order optimization for memory-constrained high-dimensional gradient sketching. Our extensive experiments on several real-world data sets from genomics to language processing demonstrate that BEAR requires up to three orders of magnitude less memory space to achieve the same classification accuracy compared to the first-order sketching algorithms with a comparable run time. Our theoretical analysis further proves the global convergence of BEAR with O(1/𝑡) rate in 𝑡 iterations of the sketched algorithm. 

   more » « less