skip to main content


Title: Failure Detection in Deep Neural Networks for Medical Imaging
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have started to find their role in the modern healthcare system. DNNs are being developed for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and outcome prediction for various diseases. With the increasing number of applications of DNNs in modern healthcare, their trustworthiness and reliability are becoming increasingly important. An essential aspect of trustworthiness is detecting the performance degradation and failure of deployed DNNs in medical settings. The softmax output values produced by DNNs are not a calibrated measure of model confidence. Softmax probability numbers are generally higher than the actual model confidence. The model confidence-accuracy gap further increases for wrong predictions and noisy inputs. We employ recently proposed Bayesian deep neural networks (BDNNs) to learn uncertainty in the model parameters. These models simultaneously output the predictions and a measure of confidence in the predictions. By testing these models under various noisy conditions, we show that the (learned) predictive confidence is well calibrated. We use these reliable confidence values for monitoring performance degradation and failure detection in DNNs. We propose two different failure detection methods. In the first method, we define a fixed threshold value based on the behavior of the predictive confidence with changing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the test dataset. The second method learns the threshold value with a neural network. The proposed failure detection mechanisms seamlessly abstain from making decisions when the confidence of the BDNN is below the defined threshold and hold the decision for manual review. Resultantly, the accuracy of the models improves on the unseen test samples. We tested our proposed approach on three medical imaging datasets: PathMNIST, DermaMNIST, and OrganAMNIST, under different levels and types of noise. An increase in the noise of the test images increases the number of abstained samples. BDNNs are inherently robust and show more than 10% accuracy improvement with the proposed failure detection methods. The increased number of abstained samples or an abrupt increase in the predictive variance indicates model performance degradation or possible failure. Our work has the potential to improve the trustworthiness of DNNs and enhance user confidence in the model predictions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2153413 1903466 2401828
NSF-PAR ID:
10405494
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Frontiers in Medical Technology
Volume:
4
ISSN:
2673-3129
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Inference accuracy of deep neural networks (DNNs) is a crucial performance metric, but can vary greatly in practice subject to actual test datasets and is typically unknown due to the lack of ground truth labels. This has raised significant concerns with trustworthiness of DNNs, especially in safety-critical applications. In this paper, we address trustworthiness of DNNs by using post-hoc processing to monitor the true inference accuracy on a user’s dataset. Concretely, we propose a neural network-based accuracy monitor model, which only takes the deployed DNN’s softmax probability output as its input and directly predicts if the DNN’s prediction result is correct or not, thus leading to an estimate of the true inference accuracy. The accuracy monitor model can be pre-trained on a dataset relevant to the target application of interest, and only needs to actively label a small portion (1% in our experiments) of the user’s dataset for model transfer. For estimation robustness, we further employ an ensemble of monitor models based on the Monte-Carlo dropout method. We evaluate our approach on different deployed DNN models for image classification and traffic sign detection over multiple datasets (including adversarial samples). The result shows that our accuracy monitor model provides a close-to-true accuracy estimation and outperforms the existing baseline methods. 
    more » « less
  2. Model confidence or uncertainty is critical in autonomous systems as they directly tie to the safety and trustworthiness of the system. The quantification of uncertainty in the output decisions of deep neural networks (DNNs) is a challenging problem. The Bayesian framework enables the estimation of the predictive uncertainty by introducing probability distributions over the (unknown) network weights; however, the propagation of these high-dimensional distributions through multiple layers and non-linear transformations is mathematically intractable. In this work, we propose an extended variational inference (eVI) framework for convolutional neural network (CNN) based on tensor Normal distributions (TNDs) defined over convolutional kernels. Our proposed eVI framework propagates the first two moments (mean and covariance) of these TNDs through all layers of the CNN. We employ first-order Taylor series linearization to approximate the mean and covariances passing through the non-linear activations. The uncertainty in the output decision is given by the propagated covariance of the predictive distribution. Furthermore, we show, through extensive simulations on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets, that the CNN becomes more robust to Gaussian noise and adversarial attacks. 
    more » « less
  3. Wang, L. ; Dou, Q. ; Fletcher, P.T. ; Speidel, S. ; Li, S. (Ed.)
    Model calibration measures the agreement between the predicted probability estimates and the true correctness likelihood. Proper model calibration is vital for high-risk applications. Unfortunately, modern deep neural networks are poorly calibrated, compromising trustworthiness and reliability. Medical image segmentation particularly suffers from this due to the natural uncertainty of tissue boundaries. This is exasperated by their loss functions, which favor overconfidence in the majority classes. We address these challenges with DOMINO, a domain-aware model calibration method that leverages the semantic confusability and hierarchical similarity between class labels. Our experiments demonstrate that our DOMINO-calibrated deep neural networks outperform non-calibrated models and state-of-the-art morphometric methods in head image segmentation. Our results show that our method can consistently achieve better calibration, higher accuracy, and faster inference times than these methods, especially on rarer classes. This performance is attributed to our domain-aware regularization to inform semantic model calibration. These findings show the importance of semantic ties between class labels in building confidence in deep learning models. The framework has the potential to improve the trustworthiness and reliability of generic medical image segmentation models. The code for this article is available at: https://github.com/lab-smile/DOMINO. 
    more » « less
  4. Weakly supervised text classification methods typically train a deep neural classifier based on pseudo-labels. The quality of pseudo-labels is crucial to final performance but they are inevitably noisy due to their heuristic nature, so selecting the correct ones has a huge potential for performance boost. One straightforward solution is to select samples based on the softmax probability scores in the neural classifier corresponding to their pseudo-labels. However, we show through our experiments that such solutions are ineffective and unstable due to the erroneously high-confidence predictions from poorly calibrated models. Recent studies on the memorization effects of deep neural models suggest that these models first memorize training samples with clean labels and then those with noisy labels. Inspired by this observation, we propose a novel pseudo-label selection method LOPS that takes learning order of samples into consideration. We hypothesize that the learning order reflects the probability of wrong annotation in terms of ranking, and therefore, propose to select the samples that are learnt earlier. LOPS can be viewed as a strong performance-boost plug-in to most existing weakly-supervised text classification methods, as confirmed in extensive experiments on four real-world datasets. 
    more » « less
  5. 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