MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902009309 · doi:10.1149/ma2018-02/56/1997

Artificial Intelligence for Water Quality Monitoring

2018· article· en· W2902009309 on OpenAlexaff
Naga Siva Kumar Gunda, Siddharth Hariharan Gautam, Sushanta K. Mitra

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningConvolutional neural networkIdentification (biology)Set (abstract data type)Mobile devicePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkMachine learningComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging trends in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have provided a path to make better predictions in a variety of fields, including the detection of medical diseases, weather patterns, water, food quality patterns, remote sensing etc. Deep learning, a branch of AI that uses deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) modeled after the human brain, have been prominently used for accurate identification of facial features, text, and voice. This technique is used predominantly to classify a set of objects, that may not necessarily have a fixed set of features, making it very difficult to detect programmatically. As an example, researchers have started implementing deep learning techniques to identify non-uniform cancer cells from the high-resolution microscopic images of tissue samples. Similarly, most of the current screening/diagnostic devices are color-based indicators. By looking at the amount of color appearance on sensor zones of such devices, one can identify the level of certain contaminants, diseases or infections. Typically, look-up tables will be provided to classify the level of sensing parameters based on color intensity. This is a task that would be extremely time consuming and challenging to do physically, given that a complete database mapping color to concentration would have to be created and a minor difference may or may not indicate a significant concentration change. Deep learning will be very helpful for accurate identification of color and its intensity on such diagnostic devices. In the present work, we have developed an AI-based mobile application platform, that can capture the sensor image using an inbuilt smartphone camera, identify the presence of sensing parameter and classify the level of sensing parameter based on color intensity identified in the training sets on the captured image using deep CNN algorithm. As a test case, we have implemented the developed AI-based mobile application platform for water quality monitoring for bacterial contamination. We used a low-cost rapid test kit i.e., Mobile Water Kit (MWK), developed by Gunda et al. [Anal. Methods, 2014, 6, 6236-6246 and Analyst, 2016, 141, 2920-2929] for monitoring the quality of water for bacterial contamination. MWK detects indicator bacteria (E. coli) in water samples within an hour, based on the appearance of pinkish red color on the surface of the sensing area. The color intensity represents the level of bacteria in water samples. Using the AI-based mobile app, we capture the image of the MWK sensing area (after testing water samples) and classify them into E. coli present images (i.e. E. coli images) and E. coli absent images (non-E. coli images). Deep learning works very well when there is an abundance of training data and there are certain factors that will make it difficult to programmatically distinguish between types. Using traditional computer vision techniques, one would scan the colors of each concentration. However, determining the color intensity for each concentration level is very difficult (especially because these are different shades of pinkish red for MWK). Using deep learning, this is made easy as the system determines these color intensities through training sets that have been provided statistically. In this present work, we have collected training data from MWK by testing the water samples with known concentrations of E. coli bacteria and then manually segregated the captured images based on whether the sample contains E. coli or not. Then we wrote a labeling script to label these images based on their type. We then used Google Tensorflow (a deep learning Artificial Intelligence open source tool) to distinguish between E. coli and non-E. coli images. Subsequently, we used the labeling script to classify whether an MWK tested image contains E. coli or not. As of now, we can classify the images with approximately 99% accuracy. We will also able to predict concentration levels using this method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207