| Literature DB >> 34238992 |
Rohit Kundu1, Hritam Basak1, Pawan Kumar Singh2, Ali Ahmadian3,4, Massimiliano Ferrara5, Ram Sarkar6.
Abstract
COVID-19 has crippled the world's healthcare systems, setting back the economy and taking the lives of several people. Although potential vaccines are being tested and supplied around the world, it will take a long time to reach every human being, more so with new variants of the virus emerging, enforcing a lockdown-like situation on parts of the world. Thus, there is a dire need for early and accurate detection of COVID-19 to prevent the spread of the disease, even more. The current gold-standard RT-PCR test is only 71% sensitive and is a laborious test to perform, leading to the incapability of conducting the population-wide screening. To this end, in this paper, we propose an automated COVID-19 detection system that uses CT-scan images of the lungs for classifying the same into COVID and Non-COVID cases. The proposed method applies an ensemble strategy that generates fuzzy ranks of the base classification models using the Gompertz function and fuses the decision scores of the base models adaptively to make the final predictions on the test cases. Three transfer learning-based convolutional neural network models are used, namely VGG-11, Wide ResNet-50-2, and Inception v3, to generate the decision scores to be fused by the proposed ensemble model. The framework has been evaluated on two publicly available chest CT scan datasets achieving state-of-the-art performance, justifying the reliability of the model. The relevant source codes related to the present work is available in: GitHub.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Convolution neural networks; Deep learning; Ensemble; Gompertz function
Year: 2021 PMID: 34238992 PMCID: PMC8266871 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93658-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Example of a COVID infected Lung CT-scan image. The CT-scan image has been taken from the SARS-COV-2 dataset[15]. The ground glass opacity marked with the red circle in the image is the distinguishing feature of the COVID-19 infection.
Figure 2Overall workflow of the proposed framework. The CT Scanner image (open access) is obtained from the Progressive Diagnostic Imaging website[34] and the chest CT scan images are from the SARS-COV-2 dataset[15] used in this research.
Distribution of images in the two datasets used in the present work.
| Dataset | Category | Total no. of images | No. of images in Train set | No. of images in Test set |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARS-COV-2 | COVID | 1252 | 876 | 376 |
| Non-COVID | 1229 | 860 | 369 | |
| Harvard Dataverse | COVID | 2167 | 1517 | 650 |
| Non-COVID | 2005 | 1404 | 601 |
Performance (measured in terms of accuracy) provided by the different VGG variants along with their number of parameters on the SARS-COV-2 dataset.
| Model | Accuracy (%) | Number of Parameters (in millions) |
|---|---|---|
| VGG-11 | 96.38 | 132.86 |
| VGG-13 | 96.51 | 133.05 |
| VGG-16 | 96.78 | 138.42 |
| VGG-19 | 95.17 | 143.67 |
Results obtained by the ensemble of WideResNet-50-2 and Inception v3 with varying VGG models on the SARS-COV-2 dataset.
| VGG Model Used | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1-Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG-11 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 |
| VGG-13 | 98.25 | 98.26 | 98.25 | 98.25 |
| VGG-16 | 98.12 | 98.13 | 98.12 | 98.12 |
| VGG-19 | 97.04 | 97.05 | 94.04 | 97.04 |
Results obtained by the proposed ensemble framework on the test sets of both SARS-COV-2 and Harvard Dataverse datasets.
| Dataset | Class | Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Precision (%) | Sensitivity (%) | F1 Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARS-COV-2 | COVID | 99.20 | 98.92 | 98.68 | 99.20 | 98.94 |
| Non-COVID | 98.65 | 98.94 | 99.18 | 98.64 | 98.91 | |
| Net Results | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | |
| Harvard Dataverse | COVID | 99.08 | 99.00 | 98.62 | 99.08 | 98.85 |
| Non-COVID | 98.50 | 98.62 | 99.00 | 98.50 | 98.75 | |
| Net Results | 98.80 | 98.82 | 98.81 | 98.79 | 98.80 |
Figure 3Confusion matrices obtained by the proposed ensemble model on the two datasets considered in the present work.
Figure 4ROC curves obtained by the proposed ensemble model on the two datasets.
Figure 5Loss curves obtained on the two datasets used in this research by the base learners used to form the ensemble. (a)–(c) shows the loss curves on the SARS-COV-2 dataset and (d)–(f) shows the loss curves on the Harvard Dataverse dataset.
Comparison of the proposed framework with some standard CNN models.
| Standard Model | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| SARS-COV-2 | Harvard Dataverse | |
| VGG-11[ | 96.38 | 95.92 |
| DenseNet161[ | 96.91 | 95.38 |
| Wide ResNet-50-2[ | 96.78 | 92.57 |
| ResNet34[ | 96.11 | 96.87 |
| ResNet152[ | 95.17 | 94.33 |
| Inception v3[ | 92.15 | 97.64 |
| Proposed method | 98.93 | 98.80 |
Comparison of popular ensemble techniques with the proposed Gompertz function based ensemble method.
| Ensemble technique | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| SARS-COV-2 | Harvard dataverse | |
| Multiplication Rule | 95.82 | 98.24 |
| Maximum | 96.78 | 98.47 |
| Majority Voting | 97.65 | 97.54 |
| Average | 97.83 | 97.91 |
| Weighted Average | 98.12 | 98.64 |
| Choquet Integral | 98.52 | 98.48 |
| Sugeno Integral | 98.52 | 98.48 |
| Proposed Gompertz function based ensemble | 98.93 | 98.80 |
Comparison of the proposed ensemble framework with state-of-the-art methods on both SARS-COV-2 and Harvard Dataverse datasets.
| Dataset | Method | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1-Score | Specificity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARS-COV-2 | Silva et al.[ | 97.89 | 95.33 | 97.60 | 96.45 | – |
| Horry et al.[ | 97.40 | 99.10 | 95.50 | 97.30 | – | |
| Halder et al.[ | 97.00 | 95.00 | 98.00 | 97.00 | 95.00 | |
| Jaiswal et al.[ | 96.25 | 96.29 | 96.29 | 96.29 | 96.21 | |
| Sen et al.[ | 95.32 | 95.30 | 95.30 | 95.30 | – | |
| Panwar et al.[ | 94.04 | 95.00 | 94.00 | 94.50 | 95.86 | |
| Soares et al.[ | 88.60 | 89.70 | 88.60 | 89.15 | – | |
| Proposed method | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | 98.93 | |
| Harvard Dataverse | Krishevsky et al.[ | 94.72 | 95.17 | 94.72 | 94.94 | 95.17 |
| Szegedy et al.[ | 92.64 | 92.64 | 93.54 | 93.09 | 92.64 | |
| Sandler et al.[ | 89.68 | 88.12 | 89.68 | 88.89 | 89.68 | |
| Proposed Method | 98.80 | 98.82 | 98.81 | 98.79 | 98.80 |
Results of the McNemar’s Test performed on the individual models of the ensemble, on both datasets: Null hypothesis is rejected for all cases.
| McNemar’s Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| Compared with | SARS-COV-2 | Harvard Dataverse |
| VGG-11 | 4.49E-02 | 9.50E-03 |
| Wide ResNet-50-2 | 1.05E-04 | 1.93E-15 |
| Inception v3 | 2.88E-02 | 8.40E-03 |
Figure 6Architecture of the VGG-11 base model.
Figure 7Architecture of the Wide ResNet-50-2 base model.
Figure 8Architecture of the Inception V3 base model.
Figure 9Displaying the re-parameterized Gompertz function used in the present study.