More Like this

1. Emotion, embodiment, and reproductive colonialism in the global human egg trade

   https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12637  

   Tober, Diane ; Kroløkke, Charlotte ( March 2021 , Gender, Work & Organization)

   null (Ed.)

   In the transnational fertility industry, individuals have differently positioned bodies, ranked by race, class, education, socioeconomic status, gender, and citizenship. Different forms of labor support the transnational fertility market, bringing geopolitical, and social inequities to the fore. While some people need wombs, eggs, or sperm to create their families—and have the means to pay for third‐party reproductive services—others emerge as suppliers of reproductive labor, and still others as coordinators or service agents in the international fertility industry. Building upon contemporary feminist social science and postcolonial research on reproductive travel and labor, this article explores three intersecting components: the forces that influence reproductive travel and cross‐border egg donation; how emotion and meaning are framed in clinical settings to recruit a young, healthy, able‐bodied workforce; and the embodied experiences of women who travel across borders to provide eggs for pay. Drawing upon donor and professional interviews, and multisited online and ethnographic fieldwork in fertility clinics, we explore the linkages between emotional choreography and the creation of a bioavailable workforce for the global fertility trade. Here, we examine how local and cross‐border egg provision illuminate global reproductive hierarchies—what we call “reproductive colonialism”—in transnational reproduction. 

   more » « less
2. VELVET: a noVel Ensemble Learning approach to automatically locate VulnErable sTatements

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER53432.2022.00114  

   Ding, Yangruibo ; Suneja, Sahil ; Zheng, Yunhui ; Laredo, Jim ; Morari, Alessandro ; Kaiser, Gail ; Ray, Baishakhi ( March 2022 , IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER))

   Automatically locating vulnerable statements in source code is crucial to assure software security and alleviate developers' debugging efforts. This becomes even more important in today's software ecosystem, where vulnerable code can flow easily and unwittingly within and across software repositories like GitHub. Across such millions of lines of code, traditional static and dynamic approaches struggle to scale. Although existing machine-learning-based approaches look promising in such a setting, most work detects vulnerable code at a higher granularity – at the method or file level. Thus, developers still need to inspect a significant amount of code to locate the vulnerable statement(s) that need to be fixed. This paper presents Velvet, a novel ensemble learning approach to locate vulnerable statements. Our model combines graph-based and sequence-based neural networks to successfully capture the local and global context of a program graph and effectively understand code semantics and vulnerable patterns. To study Velvet's effectiveness, we use an off-the-shelf synthetic dataset and a recently published real-world dataset. In the static analysis setting, where vulnerable functions are not detected in advance, Velvet achieves 4.5× better performance than the baseline static analyzers on the real-world data. For the isolated vulnerability localization task, where we assume the vulnerability of a function is known while the specific vulnerable statement is unknown, we compare Velvet with several neural networks that also attend to local and global context of code. Velvet achieves 99.6% and 43.6% top-1 accuracy over synthetic data and real-world data, respectively, outperforming the baseline deep learning models by 5.3-29.0%. 

   more » « less
3. Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection utilizing Time-Series, Color Fingerprint Captures

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICB45273.2019.8987297  

   Plesh, Richard ; Bahmani, Keivan ; Jang, Ganghee ; Yambay, David ; Brownlee, Ken ; Swyka, Timothy ; Johnson, Peter ; Ross, Arun ; Schuckers, Stephanie ( June 2019 , 12th IAPR International Conference On Biometrics)

   Fingerprint capture systems can be fooled by widely accessible methods to spoof the system using fake fingers, known as presentation attacks. As biometric recognition systems become more extensively relied upon at international borders and in consumer electronics, presentation attacks are becoming an increasingly serious issue. A robust solution is needed that can handle the increased variability and complexity of spoofing techniques. This paper demonstrates the viability of utilizing a sensor with time-series and color-sensing capabilities to improve the robust-ness of a traditional fingerprint sensor and introduces a comprehensive fingerprint dataset with over 36,000 image sequences and a state-of-the-art set of spoofing techniques. The specific sensor used in this research captures a traditional gray-scale static capture and a time-series color capture simultaneously. Two different methods for Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) are used to assess the benefit of a color dynamic capture. The first algorithm utilizes Static-Temporal Feature Engineering on the fingerprint capture to generate a classification decision. The second generates its classification decision using features extracted by way of the Inception V3 CNN trained on ImageNet. Classification performance is evaluated using features extracted exclusively from the static capture, exclusively from the dynamic capture, and on a fusion of the two feature sets. With both PAD approaches we find that the fusion of the dynamic and static feature-set is shown to improve performance to a level not individually achievable. 

   more » « less
4. Multi-isotopes in human hair: A tool to initiate cross-border collaboration in international cold-cases

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275902  

   Bataille, Clément P. ; Ammer, Saskia T. ; Bhuiyan, Shelina ; Chartrand, Michelle M. ; St-Jean, Gilles ; Bowen, Gabriel J. ( October 2022 , PLOS ONE)

   Marzaioli, Fabio (Ed.)

   Unidentified human remains have historically been investigated nationally by law enforcement authorities. However, this approach is outdated in a globalized world with rapid transportation means, where humans easily move long distances across borders. Cross-border cooperation in solving cold-cases is rare due to political, administrative or technical challenges. It is fundamental to develop new tools to provide rapid and cost-effective leads for international cooperation. In this work, we demonstrate that isotopic measurements are effective screening tools to help identify cold-cases with potential international ramifications. We first complete existing databases of hydrogen and sulfur isotopes in human hair from residents across North America by compiling or analyzing hair from Canada, the United States (US) and Mexico. Using these databases, we develop maps predicting isotope variations in human hair across North America. We demonstrate that both δ 2 H and δ 34 S values of human hair are highly predictable and display strong spatial patterns. Multi-isotope analysis combined with dual δ 2 H and δ 34 S geographic probability maps provide evidence for international travel in two case studies. In the first, we demonstrate that multi-isotope analysis in bulk hair of deceased border crossers found in the US, close to the Mexico-US border, help trace their last place of residence or travel back to specific regions of Mexico. These findings were validated by the subsequent identification of these individuals through the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner in Tucson, Arizona. In the second case study, we demonstrate that sequential multi-isotope analysis along the hair strands of an unidentified individual found in Canada provides detailed insights into the international mobility of this individual during the last year of life. In both cases, isotope data provide strong leads towards international travel. 

   more » « less
5. 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