| Literature DB >> 34422033 |
Ehsan Khorami1, Fatemeh Mahdi Babaei2, Aidin Azadeh3.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 is a specific type of Coronavirus that was firstly reported in China in December 2019 and is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In March 2020, this disease spread to different parts of the world causing a global pandemic. Although this disease is still increasing exponentially day by day, early diagnosis of this disease is very important to reduce the death rate and to reduce the prevalence of this pandemic. Since there are sometimes human errors by physicians in the diagnosis of this disease, using computer-aided diagnostic systems can be helpful to get more accurate results. In this paper, chest X-ray images have been examined using a new pipeline machine vision-based system to provide more accurate results. In the proposed method, after preprocessing the input X-ray images, the region of interest has been segmented. Then, a combined gray-level cooccurrence matrix (GLCM) and Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) features have been extracted from the processed images. Finally, an improved version of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based on the Red Fox Optimization algorithm is employed for the classification of the images based on the features. The proposed method is validated by performing to three datasets and its results are compared with some state-of-the-art methods. The final results show that the suggested method has proper efficiency toward the others for the diagnosis of COVID-19.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34422033 PMCID: PMC8378967 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4454507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Some examples of image processing on the input images.
Algorithm 1The pseudocode of the Otsu algorithm.
Figure 2Some examples of image segmentation on the preprocessed images.
Figure 3The block diagram of the proposed system.
Figure 4Some examples of COVID-19 chest X-ray images.
The feature extraction of the training data.
| # |
| CR |
| CN | ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.720 | 0.056 | 0.788 | 0.311 | 0.311 |
| 2 | 0.840 | 0.174 | 0.973 | 0.052 | 0.275 |
| 3 | 0.832 | 0.039 | 0.889 | 0.029 | 0.295 |
| 4 | 0.807 | 0.038 | 0.905 | 0.027 | 0.407 |
| 5 | 0.764 | 0.035 | 0.974 | 0.116 | 0.413 |
| 6 | 0.836 | 0.064 | 0.897 | 0.010 | 0.228 |
| 7 | 0.613 | 0.068 | 0.984 | 0.043 | 0.306 |
| 8 | 0.788 | 0.006 | 0.941 | 0.028 | 0.386 |
| 9 | 0.612 | 0.073 | 0.986 | 0.030 | 0.319 |
| 10 | 0.715 | 0.037 | 0.974 | 0.053 | 0.427 |
The feature extraction of the testing data.
| # |
| CR |
| CN | ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.812 | 0.066 | 0.802 | 0.051 | 0.286 |
| 2 | 0.761 | 0.057 | 0.873 | 0.015 | 0.329 |
| 3 | 0.804 | 0.040 | 0.847 | 0.053 | 0.353 |
| 4 | 0.842 | 0.032 | 0.806 | 0.022 | 0.211 |
| 5 | 0.767 | 0.030 | 0.672 | 0.017 | 0.412 |
| 6 | 0.659 | 0.034 | 0.789 | 0.033 | 0.400 |
| 7 | 0.783 | 0.019 | 0.906 | 0.064 | 0.336 |
| 8 | 0.702 | 0.026 | 0.843 | 0.040 | 0.438 |
| 9 | 0.635 | 0.037 | 0.822 | 0.052 | 0.452 |
| 10 | 0.736 | 0.072 | 0.946 | 0.082 | 0.369 |
Figure 5The comparison analysis between the proposed method and the studied methods applied to the chest X-ray images dataset.