| Literature DB >> 33954175 |
Ramin Ranjbarzadeh1, Saeid Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi2, Malika Bendechache3, Amir Amirabadi4, Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman5, Soroush Baseri Saadi4, Amirhossein Aghamohammadi6, Mersedeh Kooshki Forooshani7.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global, national, and local public health concern which has caused a significant outbreak in all countries and regions for both males and females around the world. Automated detection of lung infections and their boundaries from medical images offers a great potential to augment the patient treatment healthcare strategies for tackling COVID-19 and its impacts. Detecting this disease from lung CT scan images is perhaps one of the fastest ways to diagnose patients. However, finding the presence of infected tissues and segment them from CT slices faces numerous challenges, including similar adjacent tissues, vague boundary, and erratic infections. To eliminate these obstacles, we propose a two-route convolutional neural network (CNN) by extracting global and local features for detecting and classifying COVID-19 infection from CT images. Each pixel from the image is classified into the normal and infected tissues. For improving the classification accuracy, we used two different strategies including fuzzy c-means clustering and local directional pattern (LDN) encoding methods to represent the input image differently. This allows us to find more complex pattern from the image. To overcome the overfitting problems due to small samples, an augmentation approach is utilized. The results demonstrated that the proposed framework achieved precision 96%, recall 97%, F score, average surface distance (ASD) of 2.8 ± 0.3 mm, and volume overlap error (VOE) of 5.6 ± 1.2%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33954175 PMCID: PMC8054863 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5544742
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic of the proposed pipeline for segmentation of the infected tissues.
Figure 2A demonstration of employing Z score normalization approach. (a) Original images. (b) Z score normalization.
Figure 3A demonstration of employing fuzzy c-means clustering technique. (a) Original images. (b) Clustered images. For better understanding, the colors of the clusters are in the RGB domain with random values.
Figure 4Nonlinear Kirsch kernels in 8 rotations [15].
Figure 5The result of applying the Kirsch filter and LDN approach to a chest image. The second column illustrates edge detection using the Kirsch filter. The third column demonstrates the results of the LDN technique.
Figure 6Our implemented two-path CNN model using three distinct inputs.
Investigating the accuracy of employing dissimilar dimensions of the regions in the final result of the approach.
| Size of the semiglobal patch | Size of the local patch | DICE value for lesion segmentation |
|---|---|---|
| 40 × 40 | 11 × 11 | 24% |
| 50 × 50 | 11 × 11 | 31% |
| 60 × 60 | 11 × 11 | 33% |
| 70 × 70 | 11 × 11 | 40% |
| 80 × 80 | 11 × 11 | 41% |
| 40 × 40 | 15 × 15 | 61% |
| 50 × 50 | 15 × 15 | 70% |
| 60 × 60 | 15 × 15 | 72% |
| 70 × 70 | 15 × 15 | 73% |
| 80 × 80 | 15 × 15 | 81% |
| 40 × 40 | 21 × 21 | 74% |
| 50 × 50 | 21 × 21 | 76% |
| 60 × 60 | 21 × 21 | 81% |
| 70 × 70 | 21 × 21 | 88% |
| 80 × 80 | 21 × 21 | 91% |
| 40 × 40 | 25 × 25 | 56% |
| 50 × 50 | 25 × 25 | 73% |
| 60 × 60 | 25 × 25 | 92% |
| 70 × 70 | 25 × 25 | 89% |
| 80 × 80 | 25 × 25 | 87% |
Quantitative comparison of infected tissue segmentation outcomes based on our model and three recently published structures. The evaluations are based on average surface distance (ASD), relative volume difference (RVD), Volume overlap error (VOE), root mean square symmetric surface distance (RMS), and maximum surface distance (MSD).
| Approach | ASD (mm) | VOE (%) | RVD (%) | MSD (mm) | RMS (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet201 [ | 5.4 ± 0.3 | 11.4 ± 7.3 | −4.2 ± 5.9 | 23.6 ± 7.1 | 5.9 ± 0.4 |
| Weakly supervised deep learning [ | 5.1 ± 0.4 | 11 ± 7.3 | 7.8 ± 10.3 | 21 ± 6.6 | 5.5 ± 0.7 |
| Weakly supervised framework [ | 6.1 ± 0.6 | 11.7 ± 4.2 | 8.3 ± 6.6 | 22.7 ± 5.2 | 5.8 ± 0.5 |
| Proposed CNN | 6.3 ± 0.5 | 11.9 ± 6.8 | −5.8 ± 3.5 | 21.3 ± 6.1 | 5.7 ± 0.4 |
| Proposed CNN+LDN | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 8.3 ± 4.7 | 6.5 ± 4.1 | 15.4 ± 4.8 | 4.7 ± 0.2 |
| Proposed CNN+fuzzy | 5.5.3 ± 0.4 | 8.9 ± 5.2 | −6.9 ± 7.3 | 16.5 ± 4.9 | 5.2 ± 0.5 |
| Proposed CNN+fuzzy | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 5.6 ± 1.2 | 3.7 ± 5.6 | 7.4 ± 7.3 | 3.6 ± 0.2 |
Quantitative comparison of infected tissue segmentation outcomes based on our pipeline and three recently published structures. The evaluations are based on recall, precision, and F score.
| Approach | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet201 [ | 86% | 89% | 87% |
| Weakly supervised deep learning [ | 88% | 90% | 89% |
| Weakly supervised framework [ | 91% | 89% | 90% |
| Proposed CNN | 88% | 89% | 88% |
| Proposed CNN+LDN | 93% | 91% | 92% |
| Proposed CNN+fuzzy | 92% | 94% | 93% |
| Proposed CNN+fuzzy |
|
|
|
Figure 7Comparisons between four different kinds of strategies for COVID-19 infection detection. The red contours indicate the reference border (groundtruth). Segmentation based on the (a) proposed strategy, (b) DenseNet201 [1], (c) weakly supervised deep learning [71], and (e) weakly supervised framework [4].
Figure 8Comparison between the Dice scores of the four models employed for lung infection segmentation in CT images.