| Literature DB >> 34395157 |
Soumya Ranjan Nayak1, Janmenjoy Nayak2, Utkarsh Sinha1, Vaibhav Arora1, Uttam Ghosh3, Suresh Chandra Satapathy4.
Abstract
Coronavirus (COVID-19) is an epidemic that is rapidly spreading and causing a severe healthcare crisis resulting in more than 40 million confirmed cases across the globe. There are many intensive studies on AI-based technique, which is time consuming and troublesome by considering heavyweight models in terms of more training parameters and memory cost, which leads to higher time complexity. To improve diagnosis, this paper is aimed to design and establish a unique lightweight deep learning-based approach to perform multi-class classification (normal, COVID-19, and pneumonia) and binary class classification (normal and COVID-19) on X-ray radiographs of chest. This proposed CNN scheme includes the combination of three CBR blocks (convolutional batch normalization ReLu) with learnable parameters and one global average pooling (GP) layer and fully connected layer. The overall accuracy of the proposed model achieved 98.33% and finally compared with the pre-trained transfer learning model (DenseNet-121, ResNet-101, VGG-19, and XceptionNet) and recent state-of-the-art model. For validation of the proposed model, several parameters are considered such as learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, and different optimizers. Apart from this, several other performance measures like tenfold cross-validation, confusion matrix, evaluation metrics, sarea under the receiver operating characteristics, kappa score and Mathew's correlation, and Grad-CAM heat map have been used to assess the efficacy of the proposed model. The outcome of this proposed model is more robust, and it may be useful for radiologists for faster diagnostics of COVID-19. © King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2021.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Chest X-ray images; Convolutional neural networks; Optimization algorithms; Transfer learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 34395157 PMCID: PMC8352151 DOI: 10.1007/s13369-021-05956-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arab J Sci Eng ISSN: 2191-4281 Impact factor: 2.807
Dataset description used in this study
| Class | Number of images | Size |
|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | 750 | 224 × 224 |
| Normal | 750 | |
| Pneumonia | 750 | |
| Total | 2250 |
Fig. 1Samples of frontal-view chest X-ray images from the dataset: a Normal case, b COVID-19 case, and c pneumonia
Fig. 2Graphical presentation of max-pooling layer used in this study
Fig. 3Illustration of proposed LW-CBRGPNet model
Illustration of proposed LW-CBRGPNet model architecture
| Layer type | Output shape | Parameters | Stride | Padding | Kernel size | Dropout | Filter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | (3,224,224) | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| Conv2d | (96,110,110) | 7296 | 2 | 0 | 5 × 5 | 0 | 96 |
| BatchNorm2d | (96,110,110) | 192 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| ReLU | (96,110,110) | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| MaxPool2d | (96,36,36) | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 × 3 | 0 | – |
| Conv2d | (256,38,38) | 221,440 | 1 | 2 | 3 × 3 | 0 | 256 |
| BatchNorm2d | (256,38,38) | 512 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| ReLU | (256,38,38) | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| MaxPool2d | (256,12,12) | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 × 3 | 0 | – |
| Conv2d | (128,12,12) | 295,040 | 1 | 1 | 3 × 3 | 0 | 128 |
| BatchNorm2d | (128,12,12) | 256 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| ReLU | (128,12,12) | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | – |
| MaxPool2d | (128,4,4) | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 × 3 | 0 | |
| Global Average Pooling | (128,1,1) | 0 | – | – | 6 × 6 | 0 | – |
| softmax | 3 | 387 | – | – | – | 0 | 3 |
Fig. 4Graphical illustration of tenfold cross-validation in both Training and Testing Data
Training parameters used in proposed LW-CBRGPNet model
| Training parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Learning Rate | 0.0001 |
| Batch Size | 16 |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Loss function | Categorical Cross-entropy |
| Epochs | 50 |
| Flipping | Horizontal |
| Zoom range | 15% |
| Rotation | 10 degree |
| Lighting | 20% |
| Re-scale | 1/255 |
Multi-class classification result using tenfold cross-validation
| Folds | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1-Score | Overall accuracy | COVID-19 accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 96.91 | 96.92 | 98.44 | 96.89 | 97.82 | 98.22 |
| 2 | 97.39 | 97.35 | 98.65 | 97.36 | 98.5 | 99.11 |
| 3 | 96.92 | 96.93 | 98.45 | 96.89 | 97.94 | 98.22 |
| 4 | 97.76 | 97.81 | 98.88 | 97.76 | 98.83 | 99.56 |
| 5 | 98.16 | 98.28 | 99.34 | 98.2 | 98.8 | 99.56 |
| 6 | 98.71 | 98.64 | 99.10 | 98.66 | 99.11 | 99.11 |
| 7 | 96.83 | 96.92 | 98.70 | 96.9 | 98.02 | 98.67 |
| 8 | 98.23 | 98.23 | 98.89 | 98.52 | 98.93 | 99.11 |
| 9 | 95.56 | 95.65 | 97.77 | 95.57 | 97.54 | 97.78 |
| 10 | 96.46 | 96.42 | 98.22 | 96.47 | 97.83 | 98.22 |
| Average | 97.29 | 97.31 | 98.64 | 97.32 | 98.33 | 98.75 |
Binary class classification result using tenfold cross-validation
| Folds | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1-Score | Overall accuracy | COVID-19 accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100 | 98.65 | 100 | 99.32 | 99.32 | 100 |
| 2 | 100 | 97.3 | 100 | 98.65 | 98.66 | 100 |
| 3 | 97.37 | 98.66 | 97.3 | 98.01 | 97.99 | 96.55 |
| 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 5 | 98.65 | 98.67 | 98.65 | 98.65 | 98.66 | 98.7 |
| 6 | 98.59 | 97.22 | 98.61 | 97.9 | 97.92 | 100 |
| 7 | 98.7 | 100 | 98.68 | 99.35 | 99.34 | 100 |
| 8 | 100 | 98.67 | 100 | 99.33 | 99.32 | 100 |
| 9 | 95.95 | 100 | 96.05 | 97.93 | 97.96 | 98.7 |
| 10 | 100 | 98.7 | 100 | 99.35 | 99.39 | 100 |
| Average | 98.93 | 98.78 | 98.93 | 98.85 | 98.86 | 99.39 |
Fig. 5Confusion matrix obtained from proposed LW-CBRGPNet model in both multi-class and binary prediction level
Fig. 6Illustration of Kappa score, Mathews correlation, and accuracy plot of proposed LW-CNRNet model
Fig. 7AUROC curve of proposed LW-CBRGPNet model along with four pre-trained CNN model
Fig. 8Sample COVID-19 infected region detected by heatmap analysis
Fig. 9Loss convergence plot obtained for proposed LW-CBRGPNet between number of epoch and loss
Comparison of classification performance (in %) among different optimizers
| Model | Optimizer | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1-Score | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed LW-CBRGPNet | RMSProp | 96.05 | 96.22 | 96.15 | 95.96 | 97.17 |
| AdaDelta | 95.39 | 95.55 | 96.96 | 95.3 | 96.77 | |
| AdamW | 95.86 | 96.05 | 97.74 | 95.79 | 97.07 | |
| Adam | 97.29 | 97.32 | 98.64 | 97.32 | 98.33 |
Fig. 10Plot between learning rate and loss obtained in proposed LW-CBRGPNet model
Testing accuracy (in %) obtained by the proposed LW-CBRGPNet model with different batch sizes
| Model | Batch size | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 16 | 32 | |
| Proposed LW-CBRGP-Net | 97.27 | 98.33 | 97.76 |
Fig. 11Illustration of Misclassification results obtained by proposed LW-CBRGPNet model
Comparison of classification results (in %) of the proposed model with Pre-trained CNN models
| Pre-trained model | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F1-score | AUROC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet-101 [ | 97.46 | 97.42 | 98.61 | 98.1 | 97.37 | 97.04 |
| VGG-19 [ | 96.26 | 96.29 | 98.09 | 97.45 | 96.22 | 96.02 |
| DenseNet-121 [ | 96.16 | 96.28 | 98.09 | 97.45 | 96.2 | 95.09 |
| XceptionNet [ | 95.43 | 95.53 | 97.73 | 96.96 | 95.46 | 95.10 |
| Proposed LW-CBRGPNet | 97.29 | 97.31 | 98.64 | 98.33 | 97.32 | 98.24 |
Comparing the efficiency of proposed model with current state-of-the-art deep learning COVID-19 identification approaches (in %) using chest X-ray images
| References | Method | Number of chest X-ray samples | Binary class accuracy (%) | Multi-class Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nayak et al. [ | ResNet34 | Total:286 (COVID:143, Normal:143) | 98.33 | – |
| Ozturk et al. [ | Dark CovidNet | Total:1127 (COVID:127, Normal:500, and Pneumonia:500) | 98.08 | 87.02 |
| Ucara et al. [ | Deep Bayes-SqueezeNet | Total:5949 (COVID:76, Normal:1583, and Pneumonia:4290) | – | 98.30 |
| Rahimzadeh et al. [ | Concatenation of Xception and ResNet50V2 | Total:15,085 (COVID:180, Normal:6054, and Pneumonia:8851) | – | 91.40 |
| Wang et al. [ | Tailored DCNN (Covid-Net) | Total:13,975 (COVID:398, Normal:8066, and Pneumonia:5538) | – | 93.30 |
| Togaçar et al. [ | Fuzzy color and Stacking Approach | Total:458 (COVID:295, Normal:65, and Pneumonia:98) | – | 97.06 |
| Toramana et al. [ | Convolutional CapsNet | Total:3150 (COVID:1050, Normal:1050, and Pneumonia:1050) | 97.24 | 84.22 |
| Han et al. [ | Deep 3D Multiple Instance Learning | Total:460 (COVID:230, Normal:100, and Pneumonia:130) | 97.90 | 94.30 |
| Proposed | LW-CBRGPNet | Total:2250 (COVID:750, Normal:750, and Pneumonia:750) | 98.86 | 98.33 |
Comparison of COVID-19 class performance with other state-of-the-art approaches
| References | COVID-19class sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Precision (%) | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nayak et al. [ | 100 | 96.67 | 96.77 | Binary class |
| Ozturk et al. [ | 90.65 | 95.30 | 98.03 | Multi-class |
| Ucara et al. [ | 100 | 99.10 | 98.30 | Multi-class |
| Rahimzadeh et al. [ | 99.50 | 99.56 | 90.83 | Multi-class |
| Wang et al. [ | 91.00 | – | – | Multi-class |
| Togaçar et al. [ | 99.32 | 99.37 | 99.66 | Multi-class |
| Toramana et al. [ | 84.22 | 97.04 | 97.06 | Multi-class |
| Han et al. [ | – | – | 95.90 | Multi-class |
| Proposed | 98.75 | 98.64 | 97.29 | Multi-class |