Search

The principal aim of this Master's thesis is to propel the optimization of the membrane wing structure of the Northeastern Aerobat through origami techniques and enhancing its capacity for secure hovering within confined spaces. Bio-inspired drones offer distinctive capabilities that pave the way for innovative applications, encompassing wildlife monitoring, precision agriculture, search and rescue operations, as well as the augmentation of residential safety. The evolved noise-reduction mechanisms of birds and insects prove advantageous for drones utilized in tasks like surveillance and wildlife observation, ensuring operation devoid of disturbances. Traditional flying drones equipped with rotary or fixed wings encounter notable constraints when navigating narrow pathways. While rotary and fixed-wing systems are conventionally harnessed for surveillance and reconnaissance, the integration of onboard sensor suites within micro aerial vehicles (MAVs) has garnered interest in vigilantly monitoring hazardous scenarios in residential settings. Notwithstanding the agility and commendable fault tolerance exhibited by systems such as quadrotors in demanding conditions, their inflexible body structures impede collision tolerance, necessitating operational spaces free of collisions. Recent years have witnessed an upsurge in integrating soft and pliable materials into the design of such systems; however, the pursuit of aerodynamic efficiency curtails the utilization of excessively flexible materials for rotor blades or propellers. This thesis introduces a design that integrates polyimide flexible PCBs into the wings of the Aerobat and employs guard design incorporating feedback-driven stabilizers, enabling stable hovering flights within Northeastern's Robotics-Inspired Study and Experimentation (RISE) cage., Comment: 42 pages,20 figures

This work briefly covers our efforts to stabilize the flight dynamics of Northeastern's tailless bat-inspired micro aerial vehicle, Aerobat. Flapping robots are not new. A plethora of examples is mainly dominated by insect-style design paradigms that are passively stable. However, Aerobat, in addition for being tailless, possesses morphing wings that add to the inherent complexity of flight control. The robot can dynamically adjust its wing platform configurations during gait cycles, increasing its efficiency and agility. We employ a guard design with manifold small thrusters to stabilize Aerobat's position and orientation in hovering, a flapping system in tandem with a multi-rotor. For flight control purposes, we take an approach based on assuming the guard cannot observe Aerobat's states. Then, we propose an observer to estimate the unknown states of the guard which are then used for closed-loop hovering control of the Guard-Aerobat platform.

The successes of foundation models such as ChatGPT and AlphaFold have spurred significant interest in building similar models for electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve patient care and hospital operations. However, recent hype has obscured critical gaps in our understanding of these models' capabilities. We review over 80 foundation models trained on non-imaging EMR data (i.e. clinical text and/or structured data) and create a taxonomy delineating their architectures, training data, and potential use cases. We find that most models are trained on small, narrowly-scoped clinical datasets (e.g. MIMIC-III) or broad, public biomedical corpora (e.g. PubMed) and are evaluated on tasks that do not provide meaningful insights on their usefulness to health systems. In light of these findings, we propose an improved evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of clinical foundation models that is more closely grounded to metrics that matter in healthcare., Comment: Reformatted figures, updated contributions

We present a self-supervised, time-to-event (TTE) foundation model called MOTOR (Many Outcome Time Oriented Representations) which is pretrained on timestamped sequences of events in electronic health records (EHR) and health insurance claims. TTE models are used for estimating the probability distribution of the time until a specific event occurs, which is an important task in medical settings. TTE models provide many advantages over classification using fixed time horizons, including naturally handling censored observations, but are challenging to train with limited labeled data. MOTOR addresses this challenge by pretraining on up to 55M patient records (9B clinical events). We evaluate MOTOR's transfer learning performance on 19 tasks, across 3 patient databases (a private EHR system, MIMIC-IV, and Merative claims data). Task-specific models adapted from MOTOR improve time-dependent C statistics by 4.6% over state-of-the-art, improve label efficiency by up to 95% ,and are more robust to temporal distributional shifts. We further evaluate cross-site portability by adapting our MOTOR foundation model for six prediction tasks on the MIMIC-IV dataset, where it outperforms all baselines. MOTOR is the first foundation model for medical TTE predictions and we release a 143M parameter pretrained model for research use at [redacted URL].

Objective: There are several efforts to re-learn the 2013 ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE) for patients with specific comorbidities and geographic locations. With over 363 customized risk models in the literature, we aim to evaluate such revised models to determine if the performance improvements translate to gains in clinical utility. Methods: We re-train a baseline PCE using the ACC/AHA PCE variables and revise it to incorporate subject-level geographic location and comorbidity information. We apply fixed effects, random effects, and extreme gradient boosting models to handle the correlation and heterogeneity induced by locations. Models are trained using 2,464,522 claims records from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart and validated in the hold-out set (N=1,056,224). We evaluate models' performance overall and across subgroups defined by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and geographic locations. We evaluate models' expected net benefit using decision curve analysis and models' statistical properties using several discrimination and calibration metrics. Results: The baseline PCE is miscalibrated overall, in patients with CKD or RA, and locations with small populations. Our revised models improved both the overall (GND P-value=0.41) and subgroup calibration but only enhanced net benefit in the underrepresented subgroups. The gains are larger in the subgroups with comorbidities and heterogeneous across geographic locations. Conclusions: Revising the PCE with comorbidity and location information significantly enhanced models' calibration; however, such improvements do not necessarily translate to clinical gains. Thus, we recommend future works to quantify the consequences from using risk calculators to guide clinical decisions.

Estimation of conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) plays an essential role in modern medicine by informing treatment decision-making at a patient level. Several metalearners have been proposed recently to estimate CATEs in an effective and flexible way by re-purposing predictive machine learning models for causal estimation. In this chapter, we summarize the literature on metalearners and provide concrete guidance for their application for treatment heterogeneity estimation from randomized controlled trials' data with survival outcomes. The guidance we provide is supported by a comprehensive simulation study in which we vary the complexity of the underlying baseline risk and CATE functions, the magnitude of the heterogeneity in the treatment effect, the censoring mechanism, and the balance in treatment assignment. To demonstrate the applicability of our findings, we reanalyze the data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study. While recent literature reports the existence of heterogeneous effects of intensive blood pressure treatment with multiple treatment effect modifiers, our results suggest that many of these modifiers may be spurious discoveries. This chapter is accompanied by survlearners, an R package that provides well-documented implementations of the CATE estimation strategies described in this work, to allow easy use of our recommendations as well as the reproduction of our numerical study., Comment: A chapter of the 'Handbook of Matching and Weighting Adjustments for Causal Inference'

Evidence from observational studies has become increasingly important for supporting healthcare policy making via cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. Similar as in comparative effectiveness studies, health economic evaluations that consider subject-level heterogeneity produce individualized treatment rules (ITRs) that are often more cost-effective than one-size-fits-all treatment. Thus, it is of great interest to develop statistical tools for learning such a cost-effective ITR (CE-ITR) under the causal inference framework that allows proper handling of potential confounding and can be applied to both trials and observational studies. In this paper, we use the concept of net-monetary-benefit (NMB) to assess the trade-off between health benefits and related costs. We estimate CE-ITR as a function of patients' characteristics that, when implemented, optimizes the allocation of limited healthcare resources by maximizing health gains while minimizing treatment-related costs. We employ the conditional random forest approach and identify the optimal CE-ITR using NMB-based classification algorithms, where two partitioned estimators are proposed for the subject-specific weights to effectively incorporate information from censored individuals. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our proposals. We apply our top-performing algorithm to the NIH-funded Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) to illustrate the CE gains of assigning customized intensive blood pressure therapy., Comment: Submitted to Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Recently, many researchers have advanced data-driven methods for modeling heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs). Even still, estimation of HTEs is a difficult task -- these methods frequently over- or under-estimate the treatment effects, leading to poor calibration of the resulting models. However, while many methods exist for evaluating the calibration of prediction and classification models, formal approaches to assess the calibration of HTE models are limited to the calibration slope. In this paper, we define an analogue of the \smash{($\ell_2$)} expected calibration error for HTEs, and propose a robust estimator. Our approach is motivated by doubly robust treatment effect estimators, making it unbiased, and resilient to confounding, overfitting, and high-dimensionality issues. Furthermore, our method is straightforward to adapt to many structures under which treatment effects can be identified, including randomized trials, observational studies, and survival analysis. We illustrate how to use our proposed metric to evaluate the calibration of learned HTE models through the application to the CRITEO-UPLIFT Trial., Comment: Accepted to AISTATS 2022. This version includes link to code that was omitted from AISTATS camera ready

A growing body of work uses the paradigm of algorithmic fairness to frame the development of techniques to anticipate and proactively mitigate the introduction or exacerbation of health inequities that may follow from the use of model-guided decision-making. We evaluate the interplay between measures of model performance, fairness, and the expected utility of decision-making to offer practical recommendations for the operationalization of algorithmic fairness principles for the development and evaluation of predictive models in healthcare. We conduct an empirical case-study via development of models to estimate the ten-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to inform statin initiation in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. We demonstrate that approaches that incorporate fairness considerations into the model training objective typically do not improve model performance or confer greater net benefit for any of the studied patient populations compared to the use of standard learning paradigms followed by threshold selection concordant with patient preferences, evidence of intervention effectiveness, and model calibration. These results hold when the measured outcomes are not subject to differential measurement error across patient populations and threshold selection is unconstrained, regardless of whether differences in model performance metrics, such as in true and false positive error rates, are present. In closing, we argue for focusing model development efforts on developing calibrated models that predict outcomes well for all patient populations while emphasizing that such efforts are complementary to transparent reporting, participatory design, and reasoning about the impact of model-informed interventions in context.

Predictive models for clinical outcomes that are accurate on average in a patient population may underperform drastically for some subpopulations, potentially introducing or reinforcing inequities in care access and quality. Model training approaches that aim to maximize worst-case model performance across subpopulations, such as distributionally robust optimization (DRO), attempt to address this problem without introducing additional harms. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of DRO and several variations of standard learning procedures to identify approaches for model development and selection that consistently improve disaggregated and worst-case performance over subpopulations compared to standard approaches for learning predictive models from electronic health records data. In the course of our evaluation, we introduce an extension to DRO approaches that allows for specification of the metric used to assess worst-case performance. We conduct the analysis for models that predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay, and 30-day readmission for inpatient admissions, and predict in-hospital mortality using intensive care data. We find that, with relatively few exceptions, no approach performs better, for each patient subpopulation examined, than standard learning procedures using the entire training dataset. These results imply that when it is of interest to improve model performance for patient subpopulations beyond what can be achieved with standard practices, it may be necessary to do so via data collection techniques that increase the effective sample size or reduce the level of noise in the prediction problem.

Observational studies are valuable for estimating the effects of various medical interventions, but are notoriously difficult to evaluate because the methods used in observational studies require many untestable assumptions. This lack of verifiability makes it difficult both to compare different observational study methods and to trust the results of any particular observational study. In this work, we propose TrialVerify, a new approach for evaluating observational study methods based on ground truth sourced from clinical trial reports. We process trial reports into a denoised collection of known causal relationships that can then be used to estimate the precision and recall of various observational study methods. We then use TrialVerify to evaluate multiple observational study methods in terms of their ability to identify the known causal relationships from a large national insurance claims dataset. We found that inverse propensity score weighting is an effective approach for accurately reproducing known causal relationships and outperforms other observational study methods. TrialVerify is made freely available for others to evaluate observational study methods.