| Literature DB >> 34522236 |
K Shankar1, Sachi Nandan Mohanty2, Kusum Yadav3, T Gopalakrishnan4, Ahmed M Elmisery5.
Abstract
COVID-19 was first identified in December 2019 at Wuhan, China. At present, the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in severe consequences on both economic and social infrastructures of the developed and developing countries. Several studies have been conducted and ongoing still to design efficient models for diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 patients. The traditional diagnostic models that use reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rt-qPCR) is a costly and time-consuming process. So, automated COVID-19 diagnosis using Deep Learning (DL) models becomes essential. The primary intention of this study is to design an effective model for diagnosis and classification of COVID-19. This research work introduces an automated COVID-19 diagnosis process using Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a fusion-based feature extraction model, called FM-CNN. FM-CNN model has three major phases namely, pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification. Initially, Wiener Filtering (WF)-based preprocessing is employed to discard the noise that exists in input chest X-Ray (CXR) images. Then, the pre-processed images undergo fusion-based feature extraction model which is a combination of Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Gray Level Run Length Matrix (GLRM), and Local Binary Patterns (LBP). In order to determine the optimal subset of features, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm is employed. At last, CNN is deployed as a classifier to identify the existence of binary and multiple classes of CXR images. In order to validate the proficiency of the proposed FM-CNN model in terms of its diagnostic performance, extension experimentation was carried out upon CXR dataset. As per the results attained from simulation, FM-CNN model classified multiple classes with the maximum sensitivity of 97.22%, specificity of 98.29%, accuracy of 98.06%, and F-measure of 97.93%.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Classification; Deep learning; Fusion model; Optimal feature selection
Year: 2021 PMID: 34522236 PMCID: PMC8431962 DOI: 10.1007/s11571-021-09712-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cogn Neurodyn ISSN: 1871-4080 Impact factor: 3.473
Fig. 1Block diagram of FM-CNN model
Fig. 2Flowchart of PSO algorithm
Fig. 3Structure of CNN
Fig. 4Multi-Class a Normal b COVID-19 c SARS d Streptococcus
Results of FM-CNN model for binary class in terms of different measures
| No. of folds | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold 1 | 95.67 | 97.13 | 97.08 | 96.98 |
| Fold 2 | 96.45 | 96.82 | 96.54 | 96.52 |
| Fold 3 | 96.91 | 97.80 | 97.18 | 97.43 |
| Fold 4 | 96.72 | 97.54 | 97.21 | 97.31 |
| Fold 5 | 97.10 | 97.09 | 97.05 | 96.92 |
| Average | 96.57 | 97.28 | 97.01 | 97.03 |
Fig. 5Binary class analysis of FM-CNN model
Results of FM-CNN model for multi class in terms of different measures
| No. of folds | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold 1 | 97.23 | 98.10 | 97.94 | 97.83 |
| Fold 2 | 96.94 | 98.29 | 98.16 | 98.01 |
| Fold 3 | 97.49 | 98.40 | 98.27 | 98.14 |
| Fold 4 | 97.80 | 98.70 | 98.59 | 98.47 |
| Fold 5 | 96.62 | 97.94 | 97.33 | 97.21 |
| Average | 97.22 | 98.29 | 98.06 | 97.93 |
Fig. 6Multi class analysis of FM-CNN model
Fig. 7Average analysis of FM-CNN model
Comparative analysis of existing methods against the proposed FM-CNN method
| Methods | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FM-CNN (Binary Class) | 96.57 | 97.28 | 97.01 | 97.03 |
| FM-CNN (Multi Class) | 97.22 | 98.29 | 98.06 | 97.93 |
| Resnet-50 Model | 96.54 | 96.72 | 96.21 | 96.56 |
| VGG-19 Model | 96.10 | 96.24 | 96.18 | 96.15 |
| VGG-16 Model | 95.98 | 95.87 | 95.92 | 95.85 |
| AlexNet Model | 94.76 | 95.18 | 95.64 | 95.09 |
| RCAL-BiLSTM (Pustokhin et al. | 93.28 | 94.61 | 94.88 | 93.10 |
| FM-HCF-DLF (Shankar and Perumal | 93.61 | 94.56 | 94.08 | 93.20 |
| CNN (Pathak et al. | 87.73 | 86.97 | 87.36 | 89.65 |
| MLP (Mondal et al. | 93.00 | 87.23 | 93.13 | 93.00 |
| LR (Mondal et al. | 93.00 | 90.34 | 92.12 | 92.00 |
| K-NN (Mondal et al. | 89.00 | 90.65 | 88.91 | 89.00 |
| DT (Mondal et al. | 87.00 | 88.93 | 86.71 | 87.00 |
Fig. 8Comparative results analysis of the FM-CNN with existing methods