| Literature DB >> 33420641 |
Xiao Qi1, Lloyd G Brown2, David J Foran3, John Nosher4, Ilker Hacihaliloglu5,6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seriously endangered human health and life. In fighting against COVID-19, effective diagnosis of infected patient is critical for preventing the spread of diseases. Due to limited availability of test kits, the need for auxiliary diagnostic approach has increased. Recent research has shown radiography of COVID-19 patient, such as CT and X-ray, contains salient information about the COVID-19 virus and could be used as an alternative diagnosis method. Chest X-ray (CXR) due to its faster imaging time, wide availability, low cost, and portability gains much attention and becomes very promising. In order to reduce intra- and inter-observer variability, during radiological assessment, computer-aided diagnostic tools have been used in order to supplement medical decision making and subsequent management. Computational methods with high accuracy and robustness are required for rapid triaging of patients and aiding radiologist in the interpretation of the collected data.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 diagnosis; Chest X-ray; Image enhancement; Image phase; Multi-feature CNN
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33420641 PMCID: PMC7794081 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-020-02305-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 3.421
Fig. 1Block diagram of the proposed framework for improved COVID-19 diagnosis from CXR
Fig. 2Local phase enhancement of images
Fig. 3Our proposed multi-feature mid-level (left) and late-level (right) fusion architectures
Data distribution of the evaluation dataset
| Normal | Pneumonia | COVID-19[ | COVID-19 [ | COVID-19 (Merged) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # images | 8851 | 6045 | 400 | 2167 | 2567 |
| # subjects | 8851 | 6031 | 301 | 1183 | 1484 |
Distribution of fivefold cross-validation dataset split for training, validation, and testing for COVID-19 data only. Same split was also performed for Normal and Pneumonia datasets
| k1 | k2 | k3 | k4 | k5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training data | # images | 1555 | 1560 | 1541 | 1547 | 1529 |
| # subjects | 890 | 890 | 890 | 890 | 891 | |
| Validation data | # images | 494 | 504 | 512 | 511 | 515 |
| # subjects | 297 | 297 | 297 | 297 | 297 | |
| Test data | # images | 518 | 503 | 514 | 509 | 523 |
| # subjects | 297 | 297 | 297 | 297 | 296 |
Data distribution of Test Dataset-2
| Normal | Pneumonia | COVID-19 (COVID-CXNet) [ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| # images | 6284 | 3478 | 756 |
| # subjects | 6284 | 3464 | Unknown |
Fig. 4Top row: From left to right CXR(x, y) image of normal, pneumonia, and COVID-19 subjects. Bottom row: Grad-CAM images [33] obtained by late-fusion ResNet50 architecture
Mean overall accuracy after fivefold cross-validation on ‘Evaluation Data’ using mono-feature CNNs and multi-feature CNNs. Bold denotes the best results obtained
| AlexNet | ResNet50 | SonoNet64 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CXR( | 91.9± 0.55 | 94.58± 0.43 | 93.59±0.7 |
| MF( | 93.51± 0.39 | 94.82±0.58 | 94.70±0.4 |
| Middle fusion | 94.27±0.64 | 95.44±0.28 | 95.30±0.42 |
| Late-fusion | |||
| Xception | InceptionV4 | EfficientNetB4 | |
| CXR( | 93.38±0.38 | 93.43±0.31 | 93.47±0.62 |
| MF( | 93.83±0.47 | 94.17±0.59 | 94.19±0.45 |
| Middle fusion | 94.47±0.76 | 94.89±0.36 | 95.26±0.61 |
| Late-fusion |
Fig. 5Confusion matrix, and average precision, recall, and F1-scores obtained from fivefold cross-validation on ‘Evaluation Data’ using all multi-feature network models
Mean overall accuracy after fivefold cross-validation on ‘Test Dataset-2’ using mono-feature CNNs and multi-feature CNNs. Bold denotes the best results obtained
| AlexNet | ResNet50 | SonoNet64 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CXR( | 90.59±0.21 | 93.4±0.17 | 91.1±0.8 |
| MF( | 91.97± 0.24 | 93.17±0.3 | 93.46±0.15 |
| Middle fusion | 92.52±0.32 | 94.26±0.19 | 93.94±0.13 |
| Late-fusion | |||
| Xception | InceptionV4 | EfficientNetB4 | |
| CXR( | 92.28±0.46 | 92.99±0.2 | 92.16±0.49 |
| MF( | 92.61±0.19 | 92.89±0.27 | 93.1±0.17 |
| Middle fusion | 92.89±0.12 | 93.8±0.27 | 93.54±0.29 |
| Late-fusion |
Fig. 6Confusion matrix, and average precision, recall, and F1-scores obtained from fivefold cross-validation on ‘Test Dataset-2’ using all multi-feature network models
Comparison of proposed method with recent state-of-the-art methods for COVID-19 detection using CXR images
| Study | Method | Dataset | Acc (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. [ | COVID-Net | Training data |
| 93.3 |
| 7966 Normal | 100 Normal | |||
| 5438 Pneumonia | 100 Pneumonia | |||
| 258 COVID-19 | 100 COVID-19 | |||
| Ozturk et al. [ | DarkCovidNet | 500 Normal | 87.02 | |
| 500 Pneumonia | ||||
| 127 COVID-19 | ||||
| Haghanifar et al. [ | UNet+DenseNet | Training data |
| 87.21 |
| 3000 Normal | 724 Normal | |||
| 3400 Pneumonia | 672 Pneumonia | |||
| 400 COVID-19 | 144 COVID-19 | |||
| Siddhartha and | COVIDLite | 668 Normal | 96.43 | |
| Santra [ | 619 Viral Pneumonia | |||
| 536 COVID-19 | ||||
| Apostolopoulos and Mpesiana [ | VGG19 | Testing data 1 |
| 93.48 & 94.72 |
| 504 Normal | 504 Normal | |||
| 700 Bacterial | 714 Viral& | |||
| Pneumonia | Bacterial Pneumonia | |||
| 224 COVID-19 | 224 COVID-19 | |||
| Proposed Method | Fus-ResNet50 | Testing data 1 | Testing data 2 | 95.57&94.44 |
| 2567 Normal | 6284 Normal | |||
| 2567 Pneumonia | 3478 Pneumonia | |||
| 2567 COVID-19 | 756 COVID-19 | |||