More Like this

1. Machine learning based novelty detection using modal analysis

   https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12511  

   Ozdagli, Ali I. ; Koutsoukos, Xenofon ( November 2019 , Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering)

   Among many structural assessment methods, the change of modal characteristics is considered a well‐accepted damage detection method. However, the presence of environmental or operational variations may pollute the baseline and prevent a dependable assessment of the change. In recent years, the use of machine learning algorithms gained interest within structural health community, especially due to their ability and success in the elimination of ambient uncertainty. This paper proposes an end‐to‐end architecture to detect damage reliably by employing machine learning algorithms. The proposed approach streamlines (a) collection of structural response data, (b) modal analysis using system identification, (c) learning model, and (d) novelty detection. The proposed system aims to extract latent features of accessible modal parameters such as natural frequencies and mode shapes measured at undamaged target structure under temperature uncertainty and to reconstruct a new representation of these features that is similar to the original using well‐established machine learning methods for damage detection. The deviation between measured and reconstructed parameters, also known as novelty index, is the essential information for detecting critical changes in the system. The approach is evaluated by analyzing the structural response data obtained from finite element models and experimental structures. For the machine learning componentmore »of the approach, both principal component analysis (PCA) and autoencoder (AE) are examined. While mode shapes are known to be a well‐researched damage indicator in the literature, to our best knowledge, this research is the first time that unsupervised machine learning is applied using PCA and AE to utilize mode shapes in addition to natural frequencies for effective damage detection. The detection performance of this pipeline is compared to a similar approach where its learning model does not utilize mode shapes. The results demonstrate that the effectiveness of the damage detection under temperature variability improves significantly when mode shapes are used in the training of learning algorithm. Especially for small damages, the proposed algorithm performs better in discriminating system changes.

   « less
2. Data‐driven approach for automatic detection of aortic valve opening: B point detection from impedance cardiogram

   https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14128  

   Sheikh, Shafa‐at Ali ; Gurel, Nil Z. ; Gupta, Shishir ; Chukwu, Ikenna V. ; Levantsevych, Oleksiy ; Alkhalaf, Mhmtjamil ; Soudan, Majd ; Abdulbaki, Rami ; Haffar, Ammer ; Vaccarino, Viola ; et al ( June 2022 , Psychophysiology)

   Pre‐ejection period (PEP), an indicator of sympathetic nervous system activity, is useful in psychophysiology and cardiovascular studies. Accurate PEP measurement is challenging and relies on robust identification of the timing of aortic valve opening, marked as the B point on impedance cardiogram (ICG) signals. The ICG sensitivity to noise and its waveform's morphological variability makes automated B point detection difficult, requiring inefficient and cumbersome expert visual annotation. In this article, we propose a machine learning‐based automated algorithm to detect the aortic valve opening for PEP measurement, which is robust against noise and ICG morphological variations. We analyzed over 60 hr of synchronized ECG and ICG records from 189 subjects. A total of 3657 averaged beats were formed using our recently developed ICG noise removal algorithm. Features such as the averaged ICG waveform, its first and second derivatives, as well as high‐level morphological and critical hemodynamic parameters were extracted and fed into the regression algorithms to estimate the B point location. The morphological features were extracted from our proposed “variable” physiologically valid search‐window related to diverse B point shapes. A subject‐wise nested cross‐validation procedure was performed for parameter tuning and model assessment. After examining multiple regression models, Adaboost was selected, whichmore »demonstrated superior performance and higher robustness to five state‐of‐the‐art algorithms that were evaluated in terms of low mean absolute error of 3.5 ms, low median absolute error of 0.0 ms, high correlation with experts' estimates (Pearson coefficient = 0.9), and low standard deviation of errors of 9.2 ms. For reproducibility, an open‐source toolbox is provided.

   « less
3. Transform Waveforms into Signature Vectors for General-purpose Incipient Fault Detection

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2022.3151110  

   Weng, Yang ; Cui, Qiushi ; Guo, Muhao ( February 2022 , IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery)

   Power system equipment presents special signatures at the incipient stage of faults. As more renewables are integrated into the systems, these signatures are harder to detect. If faults are detected at an early stage, economical losses and power outages can be avoided in modern power grids. Many researchers and power engineers have proposed a series of signature-specific methods for one type of equipment's waveform abnormality. However, conventional methods are not designed to identify multiple types of incipient faults (IFs) signatures at the same time. Therefore, we develop a general-purpose IF detection method that detects waveform abnormality stemming from multiple types of devices. To avoid the computational burden of the general-purpose IF detection method, we embed the abnormality signatures into a vector and develop a pre-training model (PTM) for machine understanding. In the PTM, signal "words," "sentences," and "dictionaries" are designed and proposed. Through the comparison with a machine learning classifier and a simple probabilistic language model, the results show a superior detection performance and reveal that the training radius is highly related to the size of abnormal waveforms.
4. The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus: The Breast Tissue Subset

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB52430.2021.9672275  

   Wevodau, Z. ; Doshna, B. ; Jhala, N. ; Akhtar, I. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2021 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. (Ed.)

   The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do notmore »have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” 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 City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.« less
5. Robust and simplified machine learning identification of pitfall trap‐collected ground beetles at the continental scale

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6905  

   Blair, Jarrett ; Weiser, Michael D. ; Kaspari, Michael ; Miller, Matthew ; Siler, Cameron ; Marshall, Katie E. ( November 2020 , Ecology and Evolution)

   Insect populations are changing rapidly, and monitoring these changes is essential for understanding the causes and consequences of such shifts. However, large‐scale insect identification projects are time‐consuming and expensive when done solely by human identifiers. Machine learning offers a possible solution to help collect insect data quickly and efficiently.

   Here, we outline a methodology for training classification models to identify pitfall trap‐collected insects from image data and then apply the method to identify ground beetles (Carabidae). All beetles were collected by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), a continental scale ecological monitoring project with sites across the United States. We describe the procedures for image collection, image data extraction, data preparation, and model training, and compare the performance of five machine learning algorithms and two classification methods (hierarchical vs. single‐level) identifying ground beetles from the species to subfamily level. All models were trained using pre‐extracted feature vectors, not raw image data. Our methodology allows for data to be extracted from multiple individuals within the same image thus enhancing time efficiency, utilizes relatively simple models that allow for direct assessment of model performance, and can be performed on relatively small datasets.

   The best performing algorithm, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), reached an accuracymore »of 84.6% at the species level when naively identifying species, which was further increased to >95% when classifications were limited by known local species pools. Model performance was negatively correlated with taxonomic specificity, with the LDA model reaching an accuracy of ~99% at the subfamily level. When classifying carabid species not included in the training dataset at higher taxonomic levels species, the models performed significantly better than if classifications were made randomly. We also observed greater performance when classifications were made using the hierarchical classification method compared to the single‐level classification method at higher taxonomic levels.

   The general methodology outlined here serves as a proof‐of‐concept for classifying pitfall trap‐collected organisms using machine learning algorithms, and the image data extraction methodology may be used for nonmachine learning uses. We propose that integration of machine learning in large‐scale identification pipelines will increase efficiency and lead to a greater flow of insect macroecological data, with the potential to be expanded for use with other noninsect taxa.

   « less