| Literature DB >> 34764567 |
Zhenxing Huang1,2, Xinfeng Liu3, Rongpin Wang3, Mudan Zhang3, Xianchun Zeng3, Jun Liu4, Yongfeng Yang1,2, Xin Liu1,2, Hairong Zheng1,2, Dong Liang1,2, Zhanli Hu1,2.
Abstract
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia has become a serious health challenge in countries worldwide. Many radiological findings have shown that X-ray and CT imaging scans are an effective solution to assess disease severity during the early stage of COVID-19. Many artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis works have rapidly been proposed to focus on solving this classification problem and determine whether a patient is infected with COVID-19. Most of these works have designed networks and applied a single CT image to perform classification; however, this approach ignores prior information such as the patient's clinical symptoms. Second, making a more specific diagnosis of clinical severity, such as slight or severe, is worthy of attention and is conducive to determining better follow-up treatments. In this paper, we propose a deep learning (DL) based dual-tasks network, named FaNet, that can perform rapid both diagnosis and severity assessments for COVID-19 based on the combination of 3D CT imaging and clinical symptoms. Generally, 3D CT image sequences provide more spatial information than do single CT images. In addition, the clinical symptoms can be considered as prior information to improve the assessment accuracy; these symptoms are typically quickly and easily accessible to radiologists. Therefore, we designed a network that considers both CT image information and existing clinical symptom information and conducted experiments on 416 patient data, including 207 normal chest CT cases and 209 COVID-19 confirmed ones. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the additional symptom prior information as well as the network architecture designing. The proposed FaNet achieved an accuracy of 98.28% on diagnosis assessment and 94.83% on severity assessment for test datasets. In the future, we will collect more covid-CT patient data and seek further improvement. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.Entities:
Keywords: 3D CT image sequences; COVID-19; Clinical symptoms; Fast assessment network
Year: 2020 PMID: 34764567 PMCID: PMC7665967 DOI: 10.1007/s10489-020-01965-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Intell (Dordr) ISSN: 0924-669X Impact factor: 5.019
Fig. 1CT image examples of three patients with COVID-19. The images in the first row are from a normal patient; the images in the second row are from a patient classified as slight; and the images in the third row are patient classified as severe. The red arrows denote several potential abnormal lesion areas
Symptoms of three patient cases in Fig. 1
| Symptoms | Fever | Cough | Muscle ache | Fatigue | Headache | Nausea | Diarrhoea | Stomachache | Dyspnea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Patient 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Patient 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
“√” denotes the patient is with the certain symptom, for instance fever
Fig. 2The workflows of classification frameworks based on a a single CT image and b our proposed network (FaNet)
Fig. 3The statistical distribution of clinical symptoms (fever, cough, muscle ache, fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, stomachache and dyspnea) for clinical severity assessments was based on confirmed cases for COVID-19
Fig. 4Network structure details of the proposed FaNet. “×” denotes element-wise product operation and “ + ” denotes element-wise add operation. Symptoms, so as genders and ages of patients, are shared in feature extraction as the pattern of prior information. The channel average pooling and max pooling are used to shrink the multi-dimensional tenor into a vector, which replaces fully-connection layers to predict the certain diagnosis and severity assessments
Network parameter details for symptom-fuse channel attention module (SCAM)
| Component | Kernel size |
|---|---|
| Convolution layer 1 | 3 × 3 × 32 × 16 |
| Convolution layer 2 | 3 × 3 × 16 × 32 |
| Convolution layer 3 ( | 1 × 1 × 11 × 32 |
| Convolution layer 4 ( | 1 × 1 × 32 × 32 |
Network parameter details for prediction module
| Component | Kernel size |
|---|---|
| Convolution layer 1 ( | 1 × 1 × 64 × 32 |
| Convolution layer 2 ( | 1 × 1 × 32 × 2 |
| Convolution layer 2 ( | 3 × 3 × 32 × 3 |
Several methods based on FaNet and their descriptions
| Methods | Descriptions |
|---|---|
| FaNet-Random | FaNet with random symptoms input; |
| FaNet-Res | FaNet with only skip connection in SCAMs; |
| FaNet-Rca | FaNet with only residual channel attention in SCAMs; |
| FaNet-WA | FaNet without channel average pooling in prediction module; |
| FaNet-WM | FaNet without channel max pooling in prediction module. |
Parameter counts for different methods
| Methods | AlexNet | ResNet | MobileNet | Vgg | SeNet | DenseNet | FaNet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter Counts | 3.365 × 107 | 3.366 × 107 | 3.361 × 107 | 3.365 × 107 | 3.366 × 107 | 3.370 × 107 | 1.020 × 105 |
Accuracy on diagnosis and severity assessments for different methods
| Methods | AlexNet | ResNet | MobileNet | Vgg | SeNet | DenseNet | FaNet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis assessment | 46.55.17% | 66.38% | 53.45% | 55.17% | 56.03% | 53.45% | 98.28% |
| Severity assessment | 45.69.86% | 66.38.93% | 53.45% | 50.86% | 54.31% | 45.69% | 94.83% |
Fig. 5Accuracy for different parameter selection on the number of symptom-fused channel attention module (SCAM)
Fig. 6Accuracy comparison among FaNet-Res, FaNet-Rca and FaNet
Accuracy comparison between FaNet-Random and FaNet
| Methods | FaNet-Random | FaNet |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis assessment | 46.55% | 98.28% |
| Severity assessment | 45.69% | 94.83% |
Fig. 7Accuracy comparison among FaNet-WA, FaNet-WM and FaNet