| Literature DB >> 32589673 |
Mohamed Abd Elaziz1,2, Khalid M Hosny3, Ahmad Salah3, Mohamed M Darwish4, Songfeng Lu2, Ahmed T Sahlol5.
Abstract
COVID-19 is a worldwide epidemic, as announced by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. Machine learning (ML) methods can play vital roles in identifying COVID-19 patients by visually analyzing their chest x-ray images. In this paper, a new ML-method proposed to classify the chest x-ray images into two classes, COVID-19 patient or non-COVID-19 person. The features extracted from the chest x-ray images using new Fractional Multichannel Exponent Moments (FrMEMs). A parallel multi-core computational framework utilized to accelerate the computational process. Then, a modified Manta-Ray Foraging Optimization based on differential evolution used to select the most significant features. The proposed method evaluated using two COVID-19 x-ray datasets. The proposed method achieved accuracy rates of 96.09% and 98.09% for the first and second datasets, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32589673 PMCID: PMC7319603 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Parallel implementation of FrMEMs moment on 4-cores CPU.
Fig 2Flowchart of the proposed method.
Fig 3(A) Sample images of dataset-1 (B) Sample images of dataset-2.
The running time in seconds required to extract 961 features from one image.
| 1 core (sequential) | 2 cores | 4 cores | 8 cores | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run-time | 213 | 118 | 55.47 | 27.1 |
| speedup | -- | 1.80× | 3.83× | 7.84× |
Comparison results of MRFODE and other MH methods in terms of accuracy.
| Fn | Measure | MRFO | MRFODE | HHO | HGSO | WOA | SCA | GWO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset-1 | Mean | 0.9499 | 0.9609 | 0.9414 | 0.9456 | 0.9541 | 0.9536 | 0.9551 |
| STD | 0.0081 | 0.0106 | 0.0136 | 0.0076 | 0.0048 | 0.0048 | 0.0079 | |
| 15.6 | 16 | 20 | 16.8 | 22 | 97.2 | 105.2 | ||
| 0.015 | 0.0166 | 0.02 | 0.017 | 0.022 | 0.1 | 0.109 | ||
| Dataset-2 | Mean | 0.9688 | 0.9809 | 0.9274 | 0.9452 | 0.9490 | 0.9618 | 0.9637 |
| STD | 0.0097 | 0.0135 | 0.0328 | 0.0122 | 0.0164 | 0.0060 | 0.0094 | |
| 25.6 | 18.8 | 31.6 | 20.1 | 21 | 91.4 | 107.4 | ||
| 0.0266 | 0.019 | 0.032 | 0.0208 | 0.022 | 0.094 | 0.0111 |
Results of fitness value for MRFODE and other methods.
| MRFO | MRFODE | HHO | HGSO | WOA | SCA | GWO | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 0.0332 | 0.0355 | 0.0359 | 0.0344 | 0.1734 | 0.1292 | ||
| STD | 0.0072 | 0.0071 | 0.0070 | 0.0034 | 0.0648 | 0.0046 | ||
| Best | 0.0299 | 0.0284 | 0.0266 | 0.0305 | 0.1291 | 0.1252 | ||
| Worst | 0.0386 | 0.0437 | 0.0426 | 0.0380 | 0.3516 | 0.1362 | ||
| Mean | 0.0289 | 0.0423 | 0.0362 | 0.0364 | 0.1615 | 0.1261 | ||
| STD | 0.0045 | 0.0156 | 0.0066 | 0.0080 | 0.0642 | 0.0064 | ||
| Best | 0.0231 | 0.0296 | 0.0311 | 0.0254 | 0.1164 | 0.1184 | ||
| Worst | 0.0337 | 0.0594 | 0.0470 | 0.0460 | 0.3363 | 0.1342 |
Fig 4Average of comparison results between algorithm over (a) accuracy, (b) a number of selected features, and (c) fitness value.
Fig 5Confusion matrix using MRFODE for (A) dataset-1 and (B) dataset-2.
Mean rank obtained using Friedman test for each method.
| MRFO | MRFODE | HHO | HGSO | WOA | SCA | GWO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 5.3750 | 6.6250 | 1.1250 | 1.8750 | 3.6250 | 3.8750 | 5.5000 |
| Fitness | 2 | 1.8750 | 4.6250 | 3.8750 | 3.3750 | 6.8750 | 5.3750 |
| Attribute | 2.5000 | 1.5000 | 4.5000 | 2.5000 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
Comparison with MobileNet and related works.
| Model | Number of features | Performance | Dataset | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Recall | Precision | |||
| Apostolopoulos [ | -- | 0.9678 | 0.9866 | 0.9646 | Dataset 1 |
| MobileNet | 50176 | 0.9603 | 0.9665 | 0.9884 | |
| MobileNet | 50176 | 0.9967 | 0.9992 | 0.9970 | Dataset 2 |
| Chowdhury [ | -- | 98.3 | 100 | 96.7 | |