Preoperative Brain Tumor Imaging: Models and Software for Segmentation and Standardized Reporting

For patients suffering from brain tumor, prognosis estimation and treatment decisions are made by a multidisciplinary team based on a set of preoperative MR scans. Currently, the lack of standardized and automatic methods for tumor detection and generation of clinical reports, incorporating a wide range of tumor characteristics, represents a major hurdle. In this study, we investigate the most occurring brain tumor types: glioblastomas, lower grade gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases, through four cohorts of up to 4,000 patients. Tumor segmentation models were trained using the AGU-Net architecture with different preprocessing steps and protocols. Segmentation performances were assessed in-depth using a wide-range of voxel and patient-wise metrics covering volume, distance, and probabilistic aspects. Finally, two software solutions have been developed, enabling an easy use of the trained models and standardized generation of clinical reports: Raidionics and Raidionics-Slicer. Segmentation performances were quite homogeneous across the four different brain tumor types, with an average true positive Dice ranging between 80 and 90%, patient-wise recall between 88 and 98%, and patient-wise precision around 95%. In conjunction to Dice, the identified most relevant other metrics were the relative absolute volume difference, the variation of information, and the Hausdorff, Mahalanobis, and object average symmetric surface distances. With our Raidionics software, running on a desktop computer with CPU support, tumor segmentation can be performed in 16–54 s depending on the dimensions of the MRI volume. For the generation of a standardized clinical report, including the tumor segmentation and features computation, 5–15 min are necessary. All trained models have been made open-access together with the source code for both software solutions and validation metrics computation. In the future, a method to convert results from a set of metrics into a final single score would be highly desirable for easier ranking across trained models. In addition, an automatic classification of the brain tumor type would be necessary to replace manual user input. Finally, the inclusion of post-operative segmentation in both software solutions will be key for generating complete post-operative standardized clinical reports.publishedVersio

Preoperative Brain Tumor Imaging:Models and Software for Segmentation and Standardized Reporting

For patients suffering from brain tumor, prognosis estimation and treatment decisions are made by a multidisciplinary team based on a set of preoperative MR scans. Currently, the lack of standardized and automatic methods for tumor detection and generation of clinical reports, incorporating a wide range of tumor characteristics, represents a major hurdle. In this study, we investigate the most occurring brain tumor types: glioblastomas, lower grade gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases, through four cohorts of up to 4,000 patients. Tumor segmentation models were trained using the AGU-Net architecture with different preprocessing steps and protocols. Segmentation performances were assessed in-depth using a wide-range of voxel and patient-wise metrics covering volume, distance, and probabilistic aspects. Finally, two software solutions have been developed, enabling an easy use of the trained models and standardized generation of clinical reports: Raidionics and Raidionics-Slicer. Segmentation performances were quite homogeneous across the four different brain tumor types, with an average true positive Dice ranging between 80 and 90%, patient-wise recall between 88 and 98%, and patient-wise precision around 95%. In conjunction to Dice, the identified most relevant other metrics were the relative absolute volume difference, the variation of information, and the Hausdorff, Mahalanobis, and object average symmetric surface distances. With our Raidionics software, running on a desktop computer with CPU support, tumor segmentation can be performed in 16-54 s depending on the dimensions of the MRI volume. For the generation of a standardized clinical report, including the tumor segmentation and features computation, 5-15 min are necessary. All trained models have been made open-access together with the source code for both software solutions and validation metrics computation. In the future, a method to convert results from a set of metrics into a final single score would be highly desirable for easier ranking across trained models. In addition, an automatic classification of the brain tumor type would be necessary to replace manual user input. Finally, the inclusion of post-operative segmentation in both software solutions will be key for generating complete post-operative standardized clinical reports

Genetic algorithms with memory- and elitism-based immigrants in dynamic environments

Copyright @ 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyIn recent years the genetic algorithm community has shown a growing interest in studying dynamic optimization problems. Several approaches have been devised. The random immigrants and memory schemes are two major ones. The random immigrants scheme addresses dynamic environments by maintaining the population diversity while the memory scheme aims to adapt genetic algorithms quickly to new environments by reusing historical information. This paper investigates a hybrid memory and random immigrants scheme, called memory-based immigrants, and a hybrid elitism and random immigrants scheme, called elitism-based immigrants, for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. In these schemes, the best individual from memory or the elite from the previous generation is retrieved as the base to create immigrants into the population by mutation. This way, not only can diversity be maintained but it is done more efficiently to adapt genetic algorithms to the current environment. Based on a series of systematically constructed dynamic problems, experiments are carried out to compare genetic algorithms with the memory-based and elitism-based immigrants schemes against genetic algorithms with traditional memory and random immigrants schemes and a hybrid memory and multi-population scheme. The sensitivity analysis regarding some key parameters is also carried out. Experimental results show that the memory-based and elitism-based immigrants schemes efficiently improve the performance of genetic algorithms in dynamic environments.This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom under Grant EP/E060722/01

Evolutionary computation in dynamic and uncertain environments

This book can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2007 Springer-Verla

ETEA: A euclidean minimum spanning tree-Based evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization

© the Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyAbstract The Euclidean minimum spanning tree (EMST), widely used in a variety of domains, is a minimum spanning tree of a set of points in the space, where the edge weight between each pair of points is their Euclidean distance. Since the generation of an EMST is entirely determined by the Euclidean distance between solutions (points), the properties of EMSTs have a close relation with the distribution and position information of solutions. This paper explores the properties of EMSTs and proposes an EMST-based Evolutionary Algorithm (ETEA) to solve multiobjective optimization problems (MOPs). Unlike most EMO algorithms that focus on the Pareto dominance relation, the proposed algorithm mainly considers distance-based measures to evaluate and compare individuals during the evolutionary search. Specifically in ETEA, four strategies are introduced: 1) An EMST-based crowding distance (ETCD) is presented to estimate the density of individuals in the population; 2) A distance comparison approach incorporating ETCD is used to assign the fitness value for individuals; 3) A fitness adjustment technique is designed to avoid the partial overcrowding in environmental selection; 4) Three diversity indicators-the minimum edge, degree, and ETCD-with regard to EMSTs are applied to determine the survival of individuals in archive truncation. From a series of extensive experiments on 32 test instances with different characteristics, ETEA is found to be competitive against five state-of-the-art algorithms and its predecessor in providing a good balance among convergence, uniformity, and spread.Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom under Grant EP/K001310/1, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61070088

A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde

Cracking the code of oscillatory activity

Neural oscillations are ubiquitous measurements of cognitive processes and dynamic routing and gating of information. The fundamental and so far unresolved problem for neuroscience remains to understand how oscillatory activity in the brain codes information for human cognition. In a biologically relevant cognitive task, we instructed six human observers to categorize facial expressions of emotion while we measured the observers' EEG. We combined state-of-the-art stimulus control with statistical information theory analysis to quantify how the three parameters of oscillations (i.e., power, phase, and frequency) code the visual information relevant for behavior in a cognitive task. We make three points: First, we demonstrate that phase codes considerably more information (2.4 times) relating to the cognitive task than power. Second, we show that the conjunction of power and phase coding reflects detailed visual features relevant for behavioral response-that is, features of facial expressions predicted by behavior. Third, we demonstrate, in analogy to communication technology, that oscillatory frequencies in the brain multiplex the coding of visual features, increasing coding capacity. Together, our findings about the fundamental coding properties of neural oscillations will redirect the research agenda in neuroscience by establishing the differential role of frequency, phase, and amplitude in coding behaviorally relevant information in the brai

Improved approximation of arbitrary shapes in dem simulations with multi-spheres

DEM simulations are originally made for spherical particles only. But most of real particles are anything but not spherical. Due to this problem, the multi-sphere method was invented. It provides the possibility to clump several spheres together to create complex shape structures. The proposed algorithm offers a novel method to create multi-sphere clumps for the given arbitrary shapes. Especially the use of modern clustering algorithms, from the field of computational intelligence, achieve satisfactory results. The clustering is embedded into an optimisation algorithm which uses a pre-defined criterion. A mostly unaided algorithm with only a few input and hyperparameters is able to approximate arbitrary shapes

Finding High-Dimensional D-OptimalDesigns for Logistic Models via Differential Evolution

D-optimal designs are frequently used in controlled experiments to obtain the most accurateestimate of model parameters at minimal cost. Finding them can be a challenging task, especially whenthere are many factors in a nonlinear model. As the number of factors becomes large and interact withone another, there are many more variables to optimize and the D-optimal design problem becomes highdimensionaland non-separable. Consequently, premature convergence issues arise. Candidate solutions gettrapped in local optima and the classical gradient-based optimization approaches to search for the D-optimaldesigns rarely succeed. We propose a specially designed version of differential evolution (DE) which is arepresentative gradient-free optimization approach to solve such high-dimensional optimization problems.The proposed specially designed DE uses a new novelty-based mutation strategy to explore the variousregions in the search space. The exploration of the regions will be carried out differently from the previouslyexplored regions and the diversity of the population can be preserved. The proposed novelty-based mutationstrategy is collaborated with two common DE mutation strategies to balance exploration and exploitationat the early or medium stage of the evolution. Additionally, we adapt the control parameters of DE as theevolution proceeds. Using logistic models with several factors on various design spaces as examples, oursimulation results show our algorithm can find D-optimal designs efficiently and the algorithm outperformsits competitors. As an application, we apply our algorithm and re-design a 10-factor car refueling experimentwith discrete and continuous factors and selected pairwise interactions. Our proposed algorithm was able toconsistently outperform the other algorithms and find a more efficient D-optimal design for the problem