| Literature DB >> 32992136 |
Morteza Heidari1, Seyedehnafiseh Mirniaharikandehei2, Abolfazl Zargari Khuzani3, Gopichandh Danala2, Yuchen Qiu2, Bin Zheng2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and test a new computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) scheme of chest X-ray images to detect coronavirus (COVID-19) infected pneumonia.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 diagnosis; Computer-aided diagnosis; Convolution neural network (CNN); Coronavirus; Disease classification; VGG16 network
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32992136 PMCID: PMC7510591 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104284
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Inform ISSN: 1386-5056 Impact factor: 4.046
Fig. 1Example of chest X-ray images in three classes (top – normal, middle – community-acquired non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and bottom – COVID-19 infected pneumonia case). The figure also shows (a) the original Images, (b) the binary images after threshold, (c) images after selecting the biggest segmented region, (d) images after applying morphological filtering and (e) the original image after removing the majority part of diaphragm region ().
Fig. 2A flow diagram to illustrate image pre-processing steps to generate input of a CNN model, where () is the original Image in the dataset. () is the diaphragm removed image. () is an image after applying histogram equalization on (), and () is an image after applying bilateral filtering on (). Three images (), (), and () are fed into three channels of the CNN model to simulate the RGB image.
Fig. 3Illustration of the architecture of VGG16 based CNN model.
The architecture of the new VGG16 model after transfer learning with new layers (19 to 22).
| Number | Layer | Size | Activation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Input Image | --- | |
| 2 | 2 | ReLu | |
| 3 | Max Pooling | ReLu | |
| 5 | 2 | ReLu | |
| 6 | Max Pooling | ReLu | |
| 9 | 3 | ReLu | |
| 10 | Max Pooling | ReLu | |
| 13 | 3 | ReLu | |
| 14 | Max Pooling | ReLu | |
| 16 | 3 | ReLu | |
| 18 | Max Pooling | ReLu | |
| 19 | Flattening | 25,088 | --- |
| 20 | Fully Connected | 256 | ReLu |
| 21 | Fully Connected | 128 | ReLu |
| 22 | Fully Connected | 3 | SoftMax |
Distribution of cases in three subsets.
| Image Data Subset | Training | Validation | Testing |
|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 cases | 366 | 37 | 42 |
| Other pneumonia cases | 4201 | 460 | 518 |
| Normal cases | 2332 | 260 | 288 |
| Total number of cases | 6899 | 757 | 848 |
Fig. 4schematic representing training and validation phase of the proposed scheme.
Fig. 5(a-c) Left column show three sets of performance curves applying to the training and validation subsets for 3 experiments in 200 training epochs, respectively. The horizontal axis shows the number of epochs, and the vertical axis shows the accuracy. The right column show three confusion matrices of the corresponding testing results are shown on the right. (d) A combined confusion matrix of applying three trained models to three independent testing data subsets with total 2544 cases.
Classification report of the proposed method.
| Precision | Recall | F1-score | Support cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 0.96 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 864 |
| Other Pneumonia | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 1554 |
| COVID19 | 0.73 | 0.98 | 0.84 | 126 |
| Accuracy | --- | --- | 2544 | |
| Macro avg | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 2544 |
| Weighted avg | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 2544 |
Confusion matrix of four CNN models on X-ray Images. 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the accuracy is shown in the last column.
| Normal | Pneumonia | COVID19 | Accuracy | 95 % CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed Model | True Label | Normal | 788 | 56 | 20 | 94.5 % | [0.93,0.96] |
| Pneumonia | 35 | 1492 | 27 | ||||
| COVID 19 | 1 | 1 | 124 | ||||
| Filter-based model | Normal | 750 | 89 | 25 | 91.2 % | [0.90,0.92] | |
| Pneumonia | 64 | 1452 | 38 | ||||
| COVID19 | 2 | 6 | 118 | ||||
| Simple model | Normal | 701 | 123 | 40 | 88.0 % | [0.86,0.89] | |
| Pneumonia | 72 | 1431 | 51 | ||||
| COVID19 | 6 | 13 | 107 | ||||
| No-augmentation | Normal | 653 | 158 | 53 | 82.3 % | [0.80,0.84] | |
| Pneumonia | 124 | 1346 | 74 | ||||
| COVID19 | 8 | 23 | 95 |
Comparison accuracy results of the proposed method with the other deep learning methods on COVID-19 diagnosis.
| Approach | Data Type | Cases number (including COVID-19 cases) | Method utilized | 2 classes accuracy (%) | 3 classes accuracy (%) | COVID-19 detection Sensitivity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Narin et al. [ | X-ray | 100 (50) | ResNet50 | 98.0 | --- | 96.0 |
| Sethy et al. [ | X-ray | 50 (25) | ResNet50+SVM | 95.4 | --- | 97.0 |
| Ioannis et al. [ | X-ray | 1427 (224) | MobileNetV2 | 96.7 | 93.5 | 98.6 |
| Wang et al. [ | CT | 237 (119) | M-Inception | 82.9 | --- | 81.0 |
| Tulin et al. [ | X-ray | 1127 (127) | DarkCovidNet | 98.08 | 87.02 | 90.6 |
| Khan et al. [ | X-ray | 221 (29) | CoroNet (Xception) | 98.8 | 94.52 | 95.0 |
| Rahimzadeh & attar [ | X-ray | 11,302 (31) | Xception + ResNet50V2 | 99.5 | 91.4 | 80.53 |
| Wang et al. [ | X-ray | 300 (100) | COVID-Net | 96.6 | 93.3 | 91.0 |
| Ying et al. [ | CT | 57 (30) | DRE-Net (ResNet50) | 86 | --- | 79.0 |
| Hemdan et al. [ | X-ray | 50 (25) | COVIDX-Net | 90 | --- | ---- |
| Our new method | X-ray | 2544 (126) | VGG16 | 98.1 | 94.5 | 98.4 |