Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Boosting Transformer's Robustness and Efficacy in PPG Signal Artifact Detection with Self-Supervised Learning (2401.01013v1)

Published 2 Jan 2024 in cs.LG and eess.SP

Abstract: Recent research at CHU Sainte Justine's Pediatric Critical Care Unit (PICU) has revealed that traditional machine learning methods, such as semi-supervised label propagation and K-nearest neighbors, outperform Transformer-based models in artifact detection from PPG signals, mainly when data is limited. This study addresses the underutilization of abundant unlabeled data by employing self-supervised learning (SSL) to extract latent features from these data, followed by fine-tuning on labeled data. Our experiments demonstrate that SSL significantly enhances the Transformer model's ability to learn representations, improving its robustness in artifact classification tasks. Among various SSL techniques, including masking, contrastive learning, and DINO (self-distillation with no labels)-contrastive learning exhibited the most stable and superior performance in small PPG datasets. Further, we delve into optimizing contrastive loss functions, which are crucial for contrastive SSL. Inspired by InfoNCE, we introduce a novel contrastive loss function that facilitates smoother training and better convergence, thereby enhancing performance in artifact classification. In summary, this study establishes the efficacy of SSL in leveraging unlabeled data, particularly in enhancing the capabilities of the Transformer model. This approach holds promise for broader applications in PICU environments, where annotated data is often limited.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (46)
  1. D. Brossier, R. El Taani, M. Sauthier, N. Roumeliotis, G. Emeriaud, and P. Jouvet, “Creating a high-frequency electronic database in the picu: the perpetual patient,” Pediatr. Crit. Care Med., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. e189–e198, 2018.
  2. N. Roumeliotis, G. Parisien, S. Charette, E. Arpin, F. Brunet, and P. Jouvet, “Reorganizing care with the implementation of electronic medical records: a time-motion study in the picu,” Pediatr. Crit. Care Med., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. e172–e179, 2018.
  3. A. Mathieu and et. al., “Validation process of a high-resolution database in a pediatric intensive care unit—describing the perpetual patient’s validation,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 316–324, 2021.
  4. A. C. Dziorny and et. al., “Clinical decision support in the picu: Implications for design and evaluation,” Pediatr. Crit. Care Med., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. e392–e396, 2022.
  5. T.-D. Le and et. al., “Detecting of a patient’s condition from clinical narratives using natural language representation,” IEEE Open J. Eng. Med. Biol., vol. 3, pp. 142–149, 2022.
  6. M. Sauthier, G. Tuli, P. A. Jouvet, J. S. Brownstein, and A. G. Randolph, “Estimated pao2: A continuous and noninvasive method to estimate pao2 and oxygenation index,” Critical care explorations, vol. 3, no. 10, 2021.
  7. G. Emeriaud, Y. M. López-Fernández, N. P. Iyer, M. M. Bembea, A. Agulnik, R. P. Barbaro, F. Baudin, A. Bhalla, W. B. De Carvalho, C. L. Carroll, et al., “Executive summary of the second international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (palicc-2),” Pediatr. Crit. Care Med., vol. 24, no. 2, p. 143, 2023.
  8. P. Jouvet and et. al., “A pilot prospective study on closed loop controlled ventilation and oxygenation in ventilated children during the weaning phase,” Critical Care, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2012.
  9. M. Wysocki, P. Jouvet, and S. Jaber, “Closed loop mechanical ventilation,” J. Clin. Monit. Comput., vol. 28, pp. 49–56, 2014.
  10. B. L. Hill and et. al., “Imputation of the continuous arterial line blood pressure waveform from non-invasive measurements using deep learning,” Scientific reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 15755, 2021.
  11. F. Fan and et. al., “Estimating spo 2 via time-efficient high-resolution harmonics analysis and maximum likelihood tracking,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1075–1086, 2017.
  12. C. Macabiau, T.-D. Le, K. Albert, P. Jouvet, and R. Noumeir, “Label propagation techniques for artifact detection in imbalanced classes using photoplethysmogram signals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08480, 2023.
  13. T.-D. Le, C. Macabiau, K. Albert, P. Jouvet, and R. Noumeir, “Grn-transformer: Enhancing motion artifact detection in picu photoplethysmogram signals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03722, 2023.
  14. E. Khan, F. Al Hossain, S. Z. Uddin, S. K. Alam, and M. K. Hasan, “A robust heart rate monitoring scheme using photoplethysmographic signals corrupted by intense motion artifacts,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical engineering, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 550–562, 2015.
  15. D. Dao and et. al., “A robust motion artifact detection algorithm for accurate detection of heart rates from photoplethysmographic signals using time-frequency spectral features,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1242–1253, 2016.
  16. P. Mehrgardt and et. al., “Deep learning fused wearable pressure and ppg data for accurate heart rate monitoring,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 23, pp. 27 106–27 115, 2021.
  17. J. Liu and et. al., “Pca-based multi-wavelength photoplethysmography algorithm for cuffless blood pressure measurement on elderly subjects,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 663–673, 2020.
  18. D. A. Birrenkott and et. al., “A robust fusion model for estimating respiratory rate from photoplethysmography and electrocardiography,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., pp. 2033–2041, 2017.
  19. B. Venema and et. al., “Robustness, specificity, and reliability of an in-ear pulse oximetric sensor in surgical patients,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1178–1185, 2013.
  20. E. A. Alharbi and et. al., “Non-invasive solutions to identify distinctions between healthy and mild cognitive impairments participants,” IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med., vol. 10, pp. 1–6, 2022.
  21. C. Nwibor and et. al., “Remote health monitoring system for the estimation of blood pressure, heart rate, and blood oxygen saturation level,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 5401–5411, 2023.
  22. Z. Wang and et. al., “Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline,” in International joint conference on neural networks, 2017, pp. 1578–1585.
  23. D. Marzorati and et. al., “Hybrid convolutional networks for end-to-end event detection in concurrent ppg and pcg signals affected by motion artifacts,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 69, no. 8, 2022.
  24. S. Maqsood and et. al., “A benchmark study of machine learning for analysis of signal feature extraction techniques for blood pressure estimation using photoplethysmography (ppg),” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 138 817–138 833, 2021.
  25. D. Hendrycks, M. Mazeika, S. Kadavath, and D. Song, “Using self-supervised learning can improve model robustness and uncertainty,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019.
  26. T. Lin and et. al., “A survey of transformers,” AI Open, 2022.
  27. T.-D. Le and et. al., “A small-scale switch transformer and nlp-based model for clinical narratives classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12892, 2023.
  28. R. Shwartz-Ziv, R. Balestriero, K. Kawaguchi, T. G. Rudner, and Y. LeCun, “An information-theoretic perspective on variance-invariance-covariance regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00633, 2023.
  29. J. Devlin and et. al., “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 2019, pp. 4171–4186.
  30. P. H. Le-Khac, G. Healy, and A. F. Smeaton, “Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review,” Ieee Access, vol. 8, pp. 193 907–193 934, 2020.
  31. T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in International conference on machine learning.   PMLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607.
  32. K. Sohn, “Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016.
  33. A. v. d. Oord, Y. Li, and O. Vinyals, “Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018.
  34. M. Caron, I. Misra, J. Mairal, P. Goyal, P. Bojanowski, and A. Joulin, “Unsupervised learning of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 9912–9924, 2020.
  35. M. Caron, H. Touvron, I. Misra, H. Jégou, J. Mairal, P. Bojanowski, and A. Joulin, “Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 9650–9660.
  36. F. Pedregosa and et. al, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011.
  37. F. Chollet and et. al., “keras,” 2015.
  38. D. Hunter and et. al., “Selection of proper neural network sizes and architectures—a comparative study,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 228–240, 2012.
  39. M. Popel and et. al., “Training tips for the transformer model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00247, 2018.
  40. N. Srivastava and et. al., “Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting,” The journal of machine learning research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1929–1958, 2014.
  41. X. Glorot and et. al., “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” in Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics.   JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 249–256.
  42. S. Ioffe and et. al., “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” in International Conference on Machine Learning.   PMLR, 2015, pp. 448–456.
  43. N. Bjorck and et. al., “Understanding batch normalization,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018.
  44. H. He and et. al., “Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning,” in IEEE international joint conference on neural networks, 2008, pp. 1322–1328.
  45. J. Azar and et. al., “Deep recurrent neural network-based autoencoder for photoplethysmogram artifacts filtering,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 92, p. 107065, 2021.
  46. T.-D. Le, R. Noumeir, J. Rambaud, G. Sans, and P. Jouvet, “Adaptation of autoencoder for sparsity reduction from clinical notes representation learning,” IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 2023.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.