| Literature DB >> 34149184 |
Weiping Ding1, Janmenjoy Nayak2, H Swapnarekha1,2,3, Ajith Abraham4, Bighnaraj Naik3, Danilo Pelusi5.
Abstract
The unprecedented surge of a novel coronavirus in the month of December 2019, named as COVID-19 by the World Health organization has caused a serious impact on the health and socioeconomic activities of the public all over the world. Since its origin, the number of infected and deceased cases has been growing exponentially in almost all the affected countries of the world. The rapid spread of the novel coronavirus across the world results in the scarcity of medical resources and overburdened hospitals. As a result, the researchers and technocrats are continuously working across the world for the inculcation of efficient strategies which may assist the government and healthcare system in controlling and managing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study provides an extensive review of the ongoing strategies such as diagnosis, prediction, drug and vaccine development and preventive measures used in combating the COVID-19 along with technologies used and limitations. Moreover, this review also provides a comparative analysis of the distinct type of data, emerging technologies, approaches used in diagnosis and prediction of COVID-19, statistics of contact tracing apps, vaccine production platforms used in the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the study highlights some challenges and pitfalls observed in the systematic review which may assist the researchers to develop more efficient strategies used in controlling and managing the spread of COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Intelligent technologies; SARS-CoV-2; diagnosis; prediction; social distancing
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149184 PMCID: PMC8206574 DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.06.024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurocomputing ISSN: 0925-2312 Impact factor: 5.719
Consequences of COVID-19 on the healthcare, social and economic conditions of the people.
| Impact of COVID-19 on | Consequences of COVID-19 pandemic |
|---|---|
| Healthcare system | Interruption in the medical supply chain due to border restrictions |
| Social | Shutdown of hotels, restaurants and shopping malls to inhibit the spread of infection |
| Economic | Losses in national and international business |
Fig. 1Overall framework of the study.
comparative analysis of the other literature review used in combating COVID-19.
| Author & year | Focused Area | Activity reviewed | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ozsahin et al. & 2020 | Diagnosis using AI | Classification studies of COVID-19 / Normal, COVID-19/Non-COVID, and COVID-19/Non-COVID-19 Pneumonia, and COVID-19 severity using CT images | Most of the studies are from the preprint literature. | |
| Wynants et al. & 2020 | Diagnosis and Prognosis | Models used for predicting risk of hospital admission, | Not specified about the technology used in prediction models for prognosis and diagnosis of COVID-19 | |
| Fierabracci et al. & 2020 | Diagnosis | Structure of SARS-CoV-2, Diagnosis, treatment and Vaccine of COVID-19 | Not specified the limitations and challenges. | |
| Manigandan et al. & 2020 | Diagnosis | Transmission, Diagnostic methods and Clinical Treatment | Not specified the limitations and challenges | |
| Gola et al. & 2020 | Prediction | Study of distinct models used in forecasting, analysis of the methodology and results of these models in forecasting COVID-19 cases during lockdown | Not specified the challenges and limitations of the forecasting models | |
| Kotwal et al. & 2020 | Prediction | Type of mathematical modeling used, Analysis of predicted values using mathematical modeling and actual values in India | Not focused on prediction models used for the state prediction. Not focused on other technologies used in prediction | |
| Wang et al. & 2020 | Drugs used for treatment | Drugs in Clinical trials, Drugs proposed by Computational works, Drugs proposed by In-vitro protein-binding assays | Not focused on the development of peptide treatments | |
| Rabby et al. & 2020 | Drugs used for treatment | Effectiveness of drug against COVID-19 | Most of the studies are from single geographical location. | |
| Rismanbaf et al. & 2020 | Drugs used for treatment | Novel potential COVID-19 therapies | No clinical study has explained the effects of Tocilizumab on COVID-19 | |
| Kaur and Vandana, 2020 | Vaccine development | Vaccine production platforms along with their advantages and limitations, list of vaccine candidates available in pipeline, limitations and latest development in the status of promising vaccines | Not specified about ethical implications of the vaccine development, challenges in vaccine development | |
| Koirala et al.& 2020 | Vaccine development | History of vaccines available for coronavirus, vaccine candidates, vaccine production platforms and limitations in the vaccine development | Not specified about ethical implications, vaccine coverage, latest development in the status of vaccines | |
| Krishna and Lwin, 2020 | Social Distancing | Evaluates the effects of social distancing measures for minimizing the transmission of COVID-19 | Findings might result in generalization issue if the retrieved studies vary in sample size, quantity and population | |
| Mbunge et al. & 2020 | Social Distancing Measures | challenges in implementing social distancing and self-isolation of workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Africa | Not specified about the ethical utilization of social distancing apps without disrupting the security and privacy of individual | |
| Howard et al. & 2020 | Face mask | Evaluates the effectiveness of mask wearing using an analytical framework | Impact of wearing mask to control dissemination in work place has not been studied in this review | |
| Paxton et al. & 2020 | N95 respiratory mask for COVID-19 | Discusses about mask fabrication along with its maintenance, reuse and recycling of existing mask | Not able to perform the filtration efficiency test on a given masks both before and after preservation. | |
| Jalabneh et al. & 2020 | Mobile apps for Contact tracing | Evaluates the effectiveness of mobile apps used for contract tracing in order to control the dissemination of COVID-19 disease. | Not addressed the security and privacy issues that arise in the usage of mobile apps for contact tracing | |
| Chowdhury et al. & 2020 | Contact tracing apps | Discusses about the underlying technologies, protocols and contact tracing apps developed for controlling COVID-19 pandemic | Not addressed proximity measurement issue that arises in the usage of Bluetooth technology |
Features of distinct diagnostic approaches of COVID-19 infection along with their manufacturers, advantages and limitations.
| Diagnostic approach | Specimen | Turn Around Time | Advantages | Limitations | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT-PCR | Collected from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs and/or lower respiratory tract | 190 | Utilized widely, | Costly, required qualified technicians, Moderate turnaround time, restrictions on sample transportation | The golden standard approach used in the diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic inmates |
| RT-LAMP | Taken from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs and/or lower respiratory tract | 45–60 | Less turnaround time, High sensitivity, Less bias in analytical phase | Costly, required qualified technicians, restrictions on sample transportation | Substitute for RT-PCR to reduce the turnaround time of RT-PCR |
| NP antigen detection test | Collected from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs and/or lower respiratory tract | 240 | Easier collection process | Less sensibility, required qualified technicians, restrictions on sample transportation | It can be utilized in Labs with no equipment for RT-PCR |
| ELISA | Collected from human serum, plasma, whole blood | 240 | Less expensive, moderate turnaround time, Easy process of sample collection, Data accepted by | Required qualified technicians | Second level test in order to confirm Rapid detection test results |
| CLIA | Collected from human serum, plasma, whole blood | 30 | High Sensitivity, Helps in early detection of suspicious cases with nucleic acid false negative | Required qualified technicians, data from small cohort | Second level test in order to confirm Rapid detection test results |
| Rapid Detection Test | Collected from finger prick | 10–30 | Easy sample collection process | Low specificity and sensitivity | Used for weekly screening in high risk population |
Application of AI technologies in the diagnosis of COVID-19.
| Author & year | AI method | Functionality | Performance of the Model | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Islam et al. & 2020 | CNN + LSTM | Detection of COVID-19 using 4575 X-ray images | Obtains 99.5% accuracy | Focuses only on the posterior-anterior views. So, cannot differentiate anterior-posterior and lateral views. COVID-19 images consisting of symptoms of multiple diseases cannot be classified efficiently. | |
| Heidari et al. & 2020 | Deep Learning based CAD scheme | Detection of COVID-19 pneumonia from 8474 X-ray images | Achieves an overall accuracy of 94.5% | Evaluates only two image processing techniques to yield filtered images which may not be considered as optimal methods. | |
| Rao et al. & 2020 | Machine Learning algorithm | Detection of COVID-19 through the mobile phone Survey | – | Survey does not include asymptomatic patients | |
| Mei et al. & 2020 | CNN + Multi-layer perceptron (MLP) model | Rapid diagnosis of inmates with COVID-19 infection from CT images of 279 patients | Results in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 | Considers small sample dataset which results in the issue of generalizability of the model. | |
| Li et al. & 2020 | Deep Learning model | Detection of COVID-19 from 4356 chest CT images | Achieves an AUC of 0.9 | Study does not consider the comparison with other viral pneumonia. | |
| Zheng et al. & 2020 | DeCoVNet | Detection of COVID-19 from 630 Chest CT images | Obtains an accuracy of 90.1% | Temporal information was not utilized by UNet model. | |
| Abraham & Madhu, 2020 | Multi-CNN and Bayesnet classifier | Automated detection of COVID-19 infection from two datasets consisting of 950 and 78 X-ray images | Results in accuracy of 91.16% on 950 X-ray images and accuracy of 97.44% on 78 X-ray images | The model is not tested for multi-class classification. | |
| Fan et al. & 2020 | Inf-Net | Determines infected lung regions from 638 Slices of real CT volumes | Attains Dice similarity = 0.597 and specificity = 0.977 | The two-step strategy utilized to obtain multi-class infection labeling generate sub-optimal learning performance. | |
| Pu et al. & 2020 | Computer vision and deep learning technology | Identify, quantify and monitor advancement of pneumonia associated with two datasets consisting of 125 Chest CT and 72 serial chest CT scans | Results in dice coefficient of 81%, sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 84% | The algorithm cannot detect Ground Glass Opacities (GGOs) having very low density. | |
| Selvaraj et al. & 2020 | Deep Neural network model | Detect and segment COVID-19 infection from axial view of 80 CT images | Results in specificity of 0.942, sensitivity of 0.701and MAE of 0.082 | Cannot detect GGO from poor contrast CT images. |
(AUC is Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, MAE is Mean Absolute Error).
Application of mathematical models in the prediction of COVID-19 epidemics and transmission dynamics.
| Author & Year | Model | Type of Data | Functionality | Results | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alzahrani et al. & 2020 | ARIMA (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) | Time series data | To predict the expected daily number of COVID-19 cases in next four weeks in Saudi Arabia | Cases may reach to7668 new cases/day and approximately 127,129 cumulative daily cases in next four weeks | If the model contains high non linearity, then the accuracy may be reduced as ARIMA is a linear model | |
| Ribeiro et al. &2020 | Regression models | Time series data | Short term forecasting of cumulative confirmed cases | Results in sMAPE value in the range between 0.87% and 3.51%, 1.02%–5.63%, and 0.95%–6.90% for one, three and six days respectively | The diversity of exogenous factors that can affect the daily cases of COVID-19 | |
| Rostami-Tabar et al. & 2020 | Multiple Linear regression with Call data | Phone call data | For predicting daily COVID-19 cases | Achieves RMSE of 178.06 | Study does not include hospital information such as COVID-19 admission and bed occupancy | |
| Wang & Nao | Partial Differential Equation model | Google Community mobility reports | To predict COVID-19 cases in Arizona | Accuracy = 94% | Google Community Mobility data is not available at the zip code level | |
| Yuan et al. & 2020 | Linear model | Google Trends data | To predict COVID-19 daily new cases and new deaths in the USA | Pearson’s r of daily cases is 0.978, 0.978 and 0.979 for search interest of COVID, COVID Pneumonia and COVID heart | Retrospective nature of the modeling part is the limitation of the study | |
| Singh et al. & 2020 | Holts Winter Model | Time Series data | To predict the COVID-19 confirmed cases, active cases and deaths in India | MAPE of Confirmed cases = 11.2298%, Active cases = 16.5113%, Deaths = 13.2542 | Does not include epidemiological knowledge | |
| Malavika et al. & 2020 | Logistic growth curve mode + Susceptible Infection and Recover (SIR) model + Time Interrupted Regression model | Time series data | Predicts the COVID-19 new cases and maximum number of active cases. Also evaluates the impact of lockdown | The maximum number of predicted cases by May 18, 2020 is 57,449. | Issues in testing strategies and asymptomatic cases may result in uncertainty. | |
| Zhao et al. & 2020 | Multivariable regression model | Clinical data | Predicts mortality rate and ICU admissions | AUC of ICU admission = 0.74, AUC of mortality rate = 0.83 | As the study is from single institution results in issue of generalizability. |
(sMAPE is Symmetric mean absolute percentage error, RMSE is Root Mean Square Error.).
Application of AI technologies in the prediction of COVID-19 epidemics and transmission analysis.
| Author & Year | Model | Type of Data | Functionality | Results | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chimmula et al. & 2020 | LSTM Network (Long Short Term Memory) | Time series data | Prediction of COVID-19 transmission dynamics in Canada | For short-term predictions in Canada | Does not include patients who are on incubation period or not tested | |
| Dhamodharavadhani et al. & 2020 | Statistical Neural Network (SNN) models | Time series data | Prediction of mortality rate in India | For dataset1 RMSE = 8.528095 | Does not consider demographical and topographical components related with the spread of COVID-19 | |
| Yan et al. & 2020 | XGBoost machine learning-based model | Clinical Data | Prediction of mortality rate | Accuracy = 90% | The study is restricted to clinical settings because results may alter based on the quality and size of the dataset | |
| Singh et al. & 2020 | Least square support vector machine (LS-SVM) | Time series data | Forecasting of daily confirmed cases of COVID-19 in most affected five countries of world | Accuracy = 99% | The capability and linear dependencies of the model can be checked only if further modeling of data series is done | |
| Nkwayep et al. & 2020 | Ensemble Kalman filter | Time series data | Short-term forecast of COVID-19 in Cameroon | Basic Reproduction number R0 = 2.9495 | Generalization of result is based on small dataset | |
| Pinter et al. & 2020 | Multi-layered perceptron-imperialist competitive algorithm (MLP-ICA | Time series data | Predict the COVID-19 outbreak in China | RMSE of total cases = 167.88, RMSE of total mortality rate = 8.32 | Changes in prevention measures results in change in the accuracy of the model | |
| Qin et al. & 2020 | subset selection method | Social Media search Index data | To predict number of COVID-19 cased | RMSE = 51.6671 | other respiratory diseases with similar symptoms are considered as the bias in the prediction model | |
| Ayyoubzadeh et al. | LSTM model | Google Trends data | To estimate the number of positive cases in Iran | RMSE of LSTM = 27.187 | Limited access to google search data. |
Other studies on the development of COVID-19 drugs and vaccines.
| Strategy | Author & year | Approach | Application | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drug discovery | Zeng et al. & 2020 | an integrative network-based deep-learning methodology known as CoV-KGE | Used to identify 41 repurposable drug candidates | Not considered the confidence values of the relation between entities. | |
| Hooshmand et al. & 2020 | Multimodal Restricted Boltzmann Machine approach (MM-RBM) | Used for clustering two types of drugs | Not performed in vitro or in vivo tests | ||
| Acharya et al. & 2020 | supercomputer-based virtual high-throughput screening ensemble-docking pipeline | perform exhaustive docking of one billion compounds in less than 24 h | Not incorporated AI approaches in clustering MD trajectories and rescoring ligand ranking | ||
| Abdel-Basset et al. &2020 | heterogeneous graph attention (HGAT) model | for predicting the affinity scores of drugs against SARS-CoV-2 amino acid sequences | Not shown the semantic representation of input sequences. | ||
| Beck et al. & 2020 | Molecule Transformer-Drug Target Interaction (MT-DTI) | To predict binding affinity between drugs and protein targets | Not performed in vitro or in vivo tests | ||
| Hofmarcher et al. & 2020 | a deep neural network based ChemAI | predict inhibitory effects of molecules on SARS-CoV-2 proteases | Considered small amount of data | ||
| Vaccine Development | Ong et al. & 2020 | Vaxign reverse vaccinology tool and Vaxign-ML machine learning tool | For predicting COVID-19 vaccine candidates | – | |
| Ward et al. & 2020 | Online immuno-analytics | To instruct control activities in a post-vaccine surveillance setting | – | ||
| Abdelmageed et al. & 2020 | Immune-informatics approach | To design a multiepitope peptide vaccine for COVID-19 | – | ||
| Fleri et al. & 2020 | Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB) | Used in epitope prediction and vaccine design | – | ||
Analysis of distinct technologies in the prevention of COVID-19 through social distancing measures.
| Author & year | Technology | Focused Area | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yang et al. & 2020 | AI technology | Social distancing detection and warning system | Pedestrians were not considered | |
| Soures et al. & 2020 | Hybrid Neural Network model | Impact of social distancing measures in controlling COVID-19 infection | Rapid changes in the dataset may affect the results | |
| Broniec et al. & 2020 | AI tool (VERA) | Effect of social distancing measures to control COVID-19 infection | Supports only conceptual modelling | |
| Punn et al. & 2020 | Yolo V3 and Deepsort techniques | Monitoring of Social distance | Privacy and individual rights have not been addressed | |
| Ahmed et al. & 2020 | Deep Learning based Platform | Tracking of Social distancing | Not implemented in indoor and outdoor environment | |
| Fazio et al. & 2020 | IoT-based Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) | Tackling social distancing measures using Proximity-based indoor navigation system | Algorithms not used for detecting best navigation path | |
| Alrashidi et al. & 2020 | Intelligent IoT system | To control the locations and movement in Indoor Spaces | The constraint of existing obstacles is not explored | |
| Nadikattu et al. & 2020 | Novel smart device | Senses distance between individuals and triggers alarm when the person in the range is having symptoms | Accuracy of system can be further increased by increasing the design of the sensor | |
| Fedele et al. & 2020 | IoT -WSN | Monitoring social distancing and Emergency management | Not implemented using low computational devices such as microcontrollers | |
| Visal et al. & 2020 | OpenCV + Deep Learning + Drones | Monitoring of social distancing | Controlling large mob is not an easy task | |
| Ramadass et al. & 2020 | Automated Drone | Controlling social distancing in public places | Privacy of the individual is not addressed | |
| Garg et al. & 2020 | Block-chain based system | For implementing social distancing for prolonged period | Depends on participants possessing and operating a smartphone | |
| Rusli et al. & 2020 | GPS technology based MySD | Monitors the distance between individuals and alerts signal | Depends on the participants usage of MySD |
Analysis of COVID-19 contact tracing using distinct technologies.
| Author & year | Technology | Performance of the model | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garg et al. & 2020 | IoT and Blockchain technology | To deploy prototype, average cost =$1.95 | not implemented the concept of security | |
| Roy et al. & 2020 | IoT technology | Efficiently tracks the infected individual and also used for tracing back all exposed people | Limited to simulation-based experiments only | |
| Hu and Peng, 2020 | IoT technology | Effectively tracks the infected individual even in the presence of lockdown measures. | confined to simulation-based experiments only | |
| Polenta et al. & 2020 | BubbleBox | Maximizes the coverage area of contact tracing | Not assessed the acceptability of the wristband among the users | |
| Ojagh et al. & 2020 | Graph-based data model | Average execution time of person-to-place contact tracing enhances by 58.3%. | Focused only on indoor environments |
Analysis of technologies used in the detection of face mask.
| Author & year | Technology | Performance of the model | Limitations | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loey et al. & 2020 | Hybrid Deep Transfer learning model | For Real-World Masked Face Dataset (RMFD), accuracy = 99.64%, for Simulated Masked Face Dataset (SMFD), accuracy = 99.49%, for Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) accuracy = 100% | conventional machine learning methods also attains high accuracy | |
| Loey et al.& 2020 | ResNet-50 + YoloV2 | Precision percentage of adam optimizer = 81% | Cannot detect face mask from images and videos | |
| Chowdary et al. & 2020 | Inception V3 | Accuracy = 100% | – | |
| Militante et al. & 2020 | VGG16 model with alarm system | Accuracy = 96% | Not compared with other pretrained models to show the efficiency of the system | |
| Chen et al. & 2020 | Service stage based on Mobile phone | Precision = 82.87% | Not considered the conditions that affect the usage life of face mask | |
| Yadav et al. & 2020 | Computer vision + MobileNet V2 | Precision score = 91.7% | – | |
| Mundial et al. & 2020 | Machine Learning approach | Accuracy = 97% | Does not accomplish registration of masked face |
Fig. 2COVID-19 datasets.
Fig. 3COVID-19 dataset applications.
Analysis of datasets used in COVID-19 research.
| Dataset | Datatype | Application | Method | Study & Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical image | X-ray & CT | COVID-19 Diagnosis | Deep CNN and Transfer learning | Cohen et al. |
| CT | Zhao et al. | |||
| X-ray | Hemdan et al. | |||
| X-ray | COVID-19 Diagnosis | CNN | Narin et al. | |
| Ultrasound | Born et al. | |||
| X-ray | COVID-19 Diagnosis | CNN + SVM | Sethy and Behera | |
| CT | COVID-19 Segmentation | CNN | Shan + et al. | |
| Textual data | COVID-19-cases | Community transmission | Expectation-maximization | Tindale et al. |
| Maximum likelihood fitting and the Akaike information criterion | Du et al. | |||
| Bayesian approach | Nishiura et al. | |||
| COVID-19 statistics | COVID-19 visual Analysis | Exploratory data analysis | Dey et al. | |
| COVID-19 spread | ARIMA | Benvenuto et al. | ||
| Epidemiological data set | Transmission analysis | Statistical | Kraemer et al. | |
| Tweets | Social dynamics data | Statistical analysis | Banda et al. | |
| Perception and policies | Proposed NLP, data mining | Lopez et al. | ||
| Mobility | Predicting COVID-19 | Partial differential equation | Wang et al. | |
| COVID-19 Forecasting and Management | – | Ilin et al. | ||
| NPI | Investigate NPI stringency | – | Hale et al. | |
| Speech based | Breath samples | Lung disease classification | Stacked AutoEncoders, LSTM & CNN | Trivedy et al. |
| Voice data | Cough based COVID-19 diagnosis | Deep and ML classifiers | Imran et al. | |
Fig. 4Distribution of articles based on type of COVID-19 dataset.
Fig. 5Emerging technologies in combating COVID-19.
Comparative analysis of emerging technologies used in combating COVID-19 disease.
| Technology | Description of technology | Application of technology | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence | AI is a robust mechanism that enables the computers to learn and think | Detection of COVID-19 from medical radiographs. | Limited access to COVID-19 data. |
| IoT & 5G | The IoT is defined as the establishment of connection between services and semantics through wireless protocols and the support for global mobile networks is provided by 5G technology | Monitoring of patients in quarantine and isolation from remote area | Use of IoT results in privacy issue of the patient. |
| IoMT | The IoMT, also known as the healthcare IoT, is defined as the integration of medical devices and software applications for providing extensive healthcare services | Monitoring of patients in quarantine and isolation from remote area | Results in privacy and security issue of the individuals. |
| BigData | Bigdata is a discipline that analyzes and extracts information and features from large and complex data that cannot be traditionally processed with application software | Used for storing and processing large amount of data to track COVID-19 cases. | Results in security and privacy issues |
| Drone-based technology and autonomous robots | Drone technology is like a flying robot controlled by a software application. Both drone and autonomous robots perform specific responsibilities without human intervention | For controlling social distancing in crowd places. | No clear regulations and policies on the utilization of drones in healthcare system are issued by the WHO |
| Blockchain technology | Blockchain is defined as a transaction record among two parties | Ensures delivery of medication to COVID-19 patients | Results in scalability problem. |
| Virtual reality | Virtual reality is a technology used to create a simulated real time environment | Supports training of healthcare professionals. | Cost is high. |
| Additive Manufacturing | Additive manufacturing is an emerging field that assist in the design of medical equipment which can supply needed materials at lower costs | 3D printing is used for the production of mask and personal protective | Cost is high and results in scalability problem |
Fig. 6Distribution of articles based on technology.
Comparative analysis of different deep learning approaches used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 medical images.
| Author & Ref | Approach | Type of image | Number of Images | Task (Type) | Partitioning ratio | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jin et al. | ResNet152 | CT | COVID-19 positive = 496, COVID-19 negative = 1385 | Classification | Random partition | Accuracy = 94.98, Sensitivity = 94.06, Specificity = 95.47, Precision = 91.53, F1-Score = 92.78, AUC = 97.91 |
| Li et al. | ResNet50 | CT | COVID-19 = 1296, CAP = 1735, non-pneumonia = 1325 | Classification | Training = 90, Testing = 10% | Sensitivity = 90, Specificity = 96, AUC = 96 |
| Yousefzadeh et al. | Ai-corona | CT | COVID-19 = 706, non-COVID-19 = 1418 | Classification | Training = 80% Validation = 20% | Accuracy = 96.4, Sensitivity = 92.4, Specificity = 98.3, F1-Score = 95.3, AUC = 98.9, Kappa = 91.7 |
| Chen | U-Net++ | CT | 46,096 | Segmentation | Random partition | Accuracy = 95.24%, Sensitivity = 100%, Specificity = 93.55% |
| Ardakani et al. | AlexNet, VGG-16, VGG-19, SqueezeNet, GoogleNet, MobileNet-V2, ResNet-18, ResNet-50, ResNet-101, Xception | CT | COVID-19 = 510, non-COVID-19 = 510 | Classification | Training = 80% Validation = 20% | Accuracy = 99.51, Sensitivity = 100, Specificity = 99.02, Precision = 99.27, AUC = 99.4, |
| Cifci | AlexNet, Inception-V4 | CT | 5800 | Classification | Training = 80%, Validation = 20% | Accuracy = 94.74, Sensitivity = 87.37, Specificity = 87.45 |
| Loey et al. | GAN, Alexnet, Googlenet, Resnet18 | X-ray | COVID = 69, normal = 79, pneumonia_bac = 79, pneumonia_vir = 79 | Classification | Training = 80%, Testing = 10%, Validation = 10% | Accuracy = 100, Sensitivity = 100, Precision = 100, F1-Score = 100 |
| Gozes | U-Net, ResNet | CT | 157 patients | Segmentation | Random partition | AUC = 99.6%, Sensitivity = 98.2%, Specificity = 92.2% |
| Ozcan | GoogleNet, ResNet18, ResNet50 | X-ray | COVID-19 = 131, bacteria = 242, normal = 200, virus = 148 | Classification | Training = 50%, Testing = 30%, Validation = 20% | Accuracy = 97.69, Sensitivity = 97.26, Specificity = 97.90, Precision = 95.95, F1-Score = 96.60 |
| Apostolopoulos and Mpesiana | VGG19, MobileNetv2, Inception, Xception, Inception-ResNetv2 | X-ray | COVID-19 = 224, pneumonia = 714, normal = 504 | Classification | 10- fold cross-validation | Accuracy = 96.78, Sensitivity = 98.66, Specificity = 96.46 |
| Minaee et al. | ResNet18, ResNet50, SqueezeNet, DenseNet-121 | X-ray | COVID-19 = 71, non-COVID = 5000 | Classification | Training = 40% Testing = 60% | Sensitivity = 100, Specificity = 95.6, AUC = 99.6 |
| Bukharia et al. | ResNet50 | X-ray | COVID-19 = 89, normal = 93, pneumonia = 96 | Classification | Training = 80% Testing = 20% | Accuracy = 98.18, Sensitivity = 98.24, Precision = 98.14, F1-Score = 98.19 |
| Farid et al. | CNN | CT | COVID-19 = 51, SARS = 51 | Classification | 10-fold cross-validation | Accuracy = 94.11, Precision = 99.4, F1-Score = 94, AUC = 99.4 |
| Singh et al. | MODE-CNN | CT | COVID-19 positive = 75, COVID-19 negative = 75 | Classification | Various proportions of training and testing dataset | Accuracy = 93.25, Sensitivity = 90.70, Specificity = 90.72, F1-Score = 89.96, Kappa = 90.60 |
| Elghamrawy and Hassanien | WOA-CNN | CT | COVID-19 = 432, viral pneumonias = 151 | Classification | Training = 65%, Testing = 35% | Accuracy = 96.40, Sensitivity = 97.25, Precision = 97.3 |
| Khan et al. | CoroNet (CNN) | X-ray | COVID-19 = 284, normal = 310, pneumonia bacterial = 330, pneumonia viral = 327 | Classification | Training = 80%, Validation = 20% | Accuracy = 89.5, Sensitivity = 100, Precision = 97, F1-Score = 98 |
| Rahimzadeh and Attar | Concatenated CNN | X-ray | COVID-19 = 180, pneumonia = 6054, normal = 8851 | Classification | 5- fold cross-validation | Accuracy = 99.50, Sensitivity = 80.53, Specificity = 99.56, Precision = 35.27 |
| Mukherjee et al. | Shallow CNN | X-ray | COVID-19 = 130, non-COVID = 130 | Classification | 5- fold cross-validation | Accuracy = 96.92, Sensitivity = 94.20, Specificity = 100, Precision = 100, F1-Score = 97.01, AUC = 99.22 |
Fig. 7Analysis of Accuracy (%) attained from CT images using distinct DL approaches.
Fig. 8Analysis of Accuracy (%) attained from X-ray images using distinct DL approaches.
Fig. 9Distribution of articles based on strategies used in combating COVID-19.
Fig. 10Overall framework of the proposed models.
Parameters used for Training model.
| Training Parameters | VGG16 | DenseNet121 | MobileNetV2 | Xception | InceptionV3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning rate | le-3 | le-3 | le-3 | le-3 | le-3 |
| Batch Size | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| Loss Function | Binary Cross-entropy | Binary Cross-entropy | Binary Cross-entropy | Binary Cross-entropy | Binary Cross-entropy |
| Epochs | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Horizontal Flipping | True | True | True | True | True |
| Vertical Flipping | False | False | False | False | False |
| width_shift_range | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| height_shift_range | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Rescaling | 1/255 | 1/255 | 1/255 | 1/255 | 1/255 |
| Rotation range | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Fig. 11Comparative analysis of evaluation metrics of distinct pretrained models for online data.
Fig. 12Comparative analysis of evaluation metrics of distinct pretrained models for original medical data.
Fig. 13Contribution of distinct approaches in COVID-19 prediction.
Fig. 14Usage statistics of distinct COVID-19 contact tracing apps.
Analysis of vaccine production platforms used in COVID-19 vaccine development.
| Vaccine platform | Vaccine candidate | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live Attenuated | Preclinical stage | Capable of simulating the immune system by inducing the toll-like receptors (TLRs). | Results in recombinants post vaccination due to nucleotide substitution during viral replication |
| Whole-Inactivated | PiCoVacc | Consist of pre-existing technology and infrastructure needed for its development. | Not handled large number of viruses. |
| Protein subunit vaccine | NVX-CoV2373 | Safer vaccine with less side effects | Does not have memory for future responses |
| Virus vector based vaccine | AZD1222, Ad5-nCoV | Contains vigorous immune response. | Integration of viral genome in host genome may result in cancer |
| RNA vaccine | mRNA-1273, BNT162 | Avoids the risk of amalgamation into the host genome due to the occurrence of translation in the cytosol of host cell | Various safety issues have been reported because of reactogenicity |
| DNA Vaccine | INO-4800 | Does not need to handle any infectious particle. | Results in abnormalities because of the insertion of foreign genome in human genome. |
Fig. 15Statistics of distinct vaccines under research.