| Literature DB >> 34567277 |
Abstract
Since the arrival of the novel Covid-19, several types of researches have been initiated for its accurate prediction across the world. The earlier lung disease pneumonia is closely related to Covid-19, as several patients died due to high chest congestion (pneumonic condition). It is challenging to differentiate Covid-19 and pneumonia lung diseases for medical experts. The chest X-ray imaging is the most reliable method for lung disease prediction. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for the lung disease predictions like pneumonia and Covid-19 from the chest X-ray images of patients. The framework consists of dataset acquisition, image quality enhancement, adaptive and accurate region of interest (ROI) estimation, features extraction, and disease anticipation. In dataset acquisition, we have used two publically available chest X-ray image datasets. As the image quality degraded while taking X-ray, we have applied the image quality enhancement using median filtering followed by histogram equalization. For accurate ROI extraction of chest regions, we have designed a modified region growing technique that consists of dynamic region selection based on pixel intensity values and morphological operations. For accurate detection of diseases, robust set of features plays a vital role. We have extracted visual, shape, texture, and intensity features from each ROI image followed by normalization. For normalization, we formulated a robust technique to enhance the detection and classification results. Soft computing methods such as artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbour (KNN), ensemble classifier, and deep learning classifier are used for classification. For accurate detection of lung disease, deep learning architecture has been proposed using recurrent neural network (RNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM). Experimental results show the robustness and efficiency of the proposed model in comparison to the existing state-of-the-art methods.Entities:
Keywords: Covid-19; Deep learning; Lung disease prediction; Machine learning; Soft computing
Year: 2021 PMID: 34567277 PMCID: PMC8449225 DOI: 10.1007/s12652-021-03464-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput
Fig. 1Framework of lung disease detection using soft computing techniques
Fig. 2Architecture of proposed F-RNN-LSTM for lung disease detection
Fig. 3Outcomes of chest X-ray image enhancement
Fig. 4Illustrations of ROI extraction of raw X-ray images
Texture features
| Texture feature | Equation | Equation number |
|---|---|---|
| Contrast | 10 | |
| Energy | 11 | |
| Homogeneity | 12 | |
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | ||
| Correlation | 16 |
Intensity features
| Features | Equation | Equation number |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | 17 | |
| Entropy | 18 | |
| Max intensity | 19 | |
| Standard deviation | 20 | |
| Kurtosis biased | 21 | |
| Kurtosis correct | 22 | |
| Skewness biased | 23 | |
| Skewness correct | 24 |
Statistics of C19RD dataset
| Total chest X-ray images | 2905 |
| Normal chest X-ray images | 1583 |
| Covid-19 chest X-ray images | 219 |
| Viral pneumonia chest X-ray images | 1345 |
| 30% test samples | 871 |
| 70% training samples | 2034 |
Statistics of CXIP dataset
| Total chest X-ray images | 5856 |
| Normal chest X-ray images | 1341 |
| Bacterial pneumonia chest X-ray images | 2890 |
| Viral pneumonia chest X-ray images | 1483 |
| 30% Test samples | 1758 |
| 70% training samples | 4098 |
Fig. 5Experimental analysis using C19RD dataset: A features normalization analysis, B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 6Precision analysis using C19RD dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 7Recall analysis using C19RD dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 8Specificity analysis using C19RD dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 9F1-score analysis using C19RD dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Performance evaluation parameters
| Parameters | Definition |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | |
| Precision | |
| Recall | |
| F-measure | |
| Specificity |
Detection accuracy performance for C19RD
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 81.54 | 82.98 | 85.72 |
| SVM | 81.94 | 84.27 | 87.88 |
| ANN | 87.95 | 89.92 | 91.22 |
| ENSEMBLE | 85.95 | 87.74 | 87.93 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 89.36 | 93.55 | 95.04 |
Precision analysis for C19RD dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 78.61 | 80.17 | 84.09 |
| SVM | 77.22 | 81.97 | 84.78 |
| ANN | 84.80 | 86.69 | 88.28 |
| ENSEMBLE | 84.38 | 84.24 | 85.76 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 88.86 | 92.46 | 93.65 |
Recall performance for C19RD dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 87.17 | 88.60 | 91.07 |
| SVM | 87.64 | 89.80 | 87.73 |
| ANN | 90.50 | 92.51 | 93.63 |
| ENSEMBLE | 82.74 | 88.48 | 88.43 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 91.63 | 95.59 | 96.78 |
Specificity computation for C19RD dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 76.72 | 80.65 | 85.77 |
| SVM | 77.05 | 86.30 | 88.02 |
| ANN | 85.70 | 87.65 | 89.07 |
| ENSEMBLE | 88.71 | 87.10 | 89.47 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 90.67 | 93.41 | 94.21 |
F1-score analysis for C19RD dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 82.67 | 84.17 | 87.44 |
| SVM | 82.02 | 85.71 | 86.23 |
| ANN | 87.56 | 89.50 | 90.88 |
| ENSEMBLE | 83.55 | 86.31 | 87.07 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 90.22 | 94.00 | 95.19 |
Fig. 10Accuracy analysis using CXIP dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 11Precision analysis using CXIP dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 12Recall analysis using CXIP dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 13Specificity analysis using CXIP dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Fig. 14F1-score analysis using CXIP dataset: A features normalization analysis and B soft computing techniques analysis
Detection accuracy analysis for CXIP dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 79.44 | 82.76 | 83.08 |
| SVM | 79.69 | 81.76 | 86.73 |
| ANN | 79.89 | 83.94 | 85.55 |
| ENSEMBLE | 80.01 | 82.58 | 84.18 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 87.82 | 92.16 | 94.31 |
Precision analysis for CXIP dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 72.36 | 73.06 | 80.51 |
| SVM | 75.43 | 76.44 | 84.90 |
| ANN | 72.90 | 82.70 | 84.16 |
| ENSEMBLE | 70.66 | 74.18 | 81.80 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 82.60 | 85.11 | 88.89 |
Recall analysis for CXIP dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 86.06 | 88.48 | 89.85 |
| SVM | 82.56 | 85.66 | 90.21 |
| ANN | 84.74 | 88.93 | 90.51 |
| ENSEMBLE | 87.47 | 90.15 | 90.53 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 90.88 | 92.41 | 95.41 |
Specificity performance for CXIP dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 76.38 | 83.29 | 84.48 |
| SVM | 81.59 | 85.38 | 87.38 |
| ANN | 76.22 | 81.21 | 82.88 |
| ENSEMBLE | 74.51 | 80.42 | 85.83 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 91.03 | 98.74 | 98.69 |
F1-score analysis for CXIP dataset
| Classifier | Raw features | Min–Max normalization | Robust normalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 78.62 | 80.03 | 84.93 |
| SVM | 78.84 | 80.78 | 87.47 |
| ANN | 78.37 | 85.70 | 87.22 |
| ENSEMBLE | 78.17 | 81.39 | 85.95 |
| F-RNN-LSTM | 86.54 | 88.60 | 92.03 |
Comparative analysis using C19RD dataset
| Methods | Detection accuracy (%) | Training and detection time (Seconds) |
|---|---|---|
| CDD-CNN (Abiyev et al. | 89.50 | 2344 |
| CDDL (Pham | 92.97 | 2478 |
| COVIDetectioNet (Turkoglu | 91.34 | 1879 |
| CNN-RN (Butt et al. | 92.67 | 2873 |
| ResNeXt-50 (Hira et al. | 91.58 | 2762 |
| CNN-E (Gianchandani et al. | 92.54 | 2489 |
| F-RNN-LSTM |
Comparative analysis using CXIP dataset
| Methods | Detection accuracy (%) | Training and detection time (Seconds) |
|---|---|---|
| CDD-CNN (Abiyev et al. | 88.23 | 4083 |
| CDDL (Pham | 92.54 | 3872 |
| COVIDetectioNet (Turkoglu | 90.73 | 3264 |
| CNN-RN (Butt et al. | 92.05 | 4599 |
| ResNeXt-50 (Hira et al. | 91.09 | 4379 |
| CNN-E (Gianchandani et al. | 92.04 | 3572 |
| F-RNN-LSTM |