| Literature DB >> 34955679 |
Abstract
COVID-19 disease is a major health calamity in twentieth century, in which the infection is spreading at the global level. Developing countries like Bangladesh, India, and others are still facing a delay in recognizing COVID-19 cases. Hence, there is a need for immediate recognition with perfect identification of infection. This clear visualization helps to save the life of suspected COVID-19 patients. With the help of traditional RT-PCR testing, the combination of medical images and deep learning classifiers delivers more hopeful results with high accuracy in the prediction and recognition of COVID-19 cases. COVID-19 disease is recently researched through sample chest X-ray images, which have already proven its efficiency in lung diseases. To emphasize corona virus testing methods and to control the community spreading, the automatic detection process of COVID-19 is processed through the detailed medication reports from medical images. Although there are numerous challenges in the manual understanding of traces in COVID-19 infection from X-ray, the subtle differences among normal and infected X-rays can be traced by the data patterns of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). To improve the detection performance of CNN, this paper plans to develop an Ensemble Learning with CNN-based Deep Features (EL-CNN-DF). In the initial phase, image scaling and median filtering perform the pre-processing of the chest X-ray images gathered from the benchmark source. The second phase is lung segmentation, which is the significant step for COVID detection. It is accomplished by the Adaptive Activation Function-based U-Net (AAF-U-Net). Once the lungs are segmented, it is subjected to novel EL-CNN-DF, in which the deep features are extracted from the pooling layer of CNN, and the fully connected layer of CNN are replaced with the three classifiers termed "Support Vector Machine (SVM), Autoencoder, Naive Bayes (NB)". The final detection of COVID-19 is done by these classifiers, in which high ranking strategy is utilized. As a modification, a Self Adaptive-Tunicate Swarm Algorithm (SA-TSA) is adopted as a boosting algorithm to enhance the performance of segmentation and detection. The overall analysis has shown that the precision of the enhanced CNN by using SA-TSA was 1.02%, 4.63%, 3.38%, 1.62%, 1.51% and 1.04% better than SVM, autoencoder, NB, Ensemble, RNN and LSTM respectively. The comparative performance analysis on existing model proves that the proposed algorithm is better than other algorithms in terms of segmentation and classification of COVID-19 detection.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive Activation Function-based U-Net; Autoencoder; COVID-19 Detection; Convolutional Neural Network; Ensemble Learning with CNN-based Deep Features; Naive Bayes; Self Adaptive- Tunicate Swarm Algorithm; Support Vector Machine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34955679 PMCID: PMC8693146 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-021-11787-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Features and challenges of traditional COVID-19 detection methods
| Author [citation] | Methodology | Features | Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karthik et al | CNN | • It converges in an optimal manner • Differentiating patterns are learned for every pneumonia class | • It does not function with various lung diseases and sub-types of pneumonia for learning definitive patterns to support the radiologists |
| Sheykhivand et al | DNN | • It is more reliable, and the oscillation is reduced • It increases the accuracy, convergence, and speed | • It does not utilize numerous datasets for eradicating the defect |
| Panwar et al | Grad-CAM | • It achieves high accuracy • A significant response is provided to the CXR images | • The COVID-19 cases are not detected in a real-time scenario |
| Ismael and Sengur [ | CNN | • The Cubic kernel function returned better classification accuracy • Better outcomes are returned by the deep CNN models | • It does not consider various lung diseases |
| Hussain et al | CNN | • It offers appropriate diagnostics • It prepares a large dataset for evaluating the classification algorithms | • It does not employ several images in the training process for enhancing the model performance |
| Rajaraman et al | CNN | • The salient ROI is exactly localized by the pruned methods | • The data required for training is very large |
| Julián et al | DNN | • It achieved better specificity and sensitivity • It returns better classification accuracy | • The algorithms are not integrated in the cloud servers or desktop applications for its usage in the area of clinic environments |
| De et al | Deep learning | • It permits a reliable and robust analysis for supporting the clinical decision-making process • It permits to classification and investigate the normal, pathological, and COVID-19 cases | • Deep Learning in practice is hard and expensive |
| Chen et al | VGG-16 | • It is used for benchmarking on a particular task | • It is too slow for training |
| Kaur et al. [ | BAT | • It can improve its local search capability and ensure the stability of the algorithm | • It requires very huge amount of data to perform better than other methods |
| Wang and Quan [ | DSAE | • It is useful to removes noise from the input signal | • It is very expensive to train due to the complex data models |
Fig. 1Proposed COVID-19 diagnosis model using EL-CNN-DF
Fig. 2Sample images are
taken from the datasets
Fig. 3Solution encoding of the proposed segmentation model
Fig. 4Proposed AAF-U-Net-based lung segmentation model using SA-TSA
Fig. 5Number of epochs and the convergence of CNN network
Fig. 6Solution encoding of the proposed EL-CNN-DF
Fig. 7Proposed EL-CNN-DF-based Covid-19 diagnosis
Fig. 8Flowchart of the developed SA-TSA algorithm
Fig. 9Segmented lung images by proposed AAF-U-Net
Lung Segmententation analysis for covid-19 detection model
| Measures | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | FPR | FNR | NPV | FDR | F1-Score | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO-U-Net [ | 0.944026 | 0.937833 | 0.953552 | 0.968807 | 0.046448 | 0.062167 | 0.953552 | 0.031193 | 0.953069 | 0.884497 |
| GWO-U-Net [ | 0.936491 | 0.920071 | 0.961749 | 0.973684 | 0.038251 | 0.079929 | 0.961749 | 0.026316 | 0.946119 | 0.871011 |
| WOA-U-Net [ | 0.949408 | 0.944938 | 0.956284 | 0.970803 | 0.043716 | 0.055062 | 0.956284 | 0.029197 | 0.957696 | 0.895311 |
| TSA-U-Net [ | 0.934338 | 0.918295 | 0.959016 | 0.971805 | 0.040984 | 0.081705 | 0.959016 | 0.028195 | 0.944292 | 0.866557 |
| SA-TSA-U-Net | 0.960172 | 0.950266 | 0.97541 | 0.983456 | 0.02459 | 0.049734 | 0.97541 | 0.016544 | 0.966576 | 0.918172 |
Fig. 10Performance ananlysis of the proposed COVID-19 detection model with different optimization functions in terms of “(a)Accuracy, (b)Sensitivity, (c)Specificity, (d)Precision, (e)FPR, (f)FNR, (g)NPV, (h)FDR, (i)F1-score, (j) MCC”
Fig. 11Performance analysis of the proposed COVID-19 detection model with different machine learning algorithms in terms of “(a)Accuracy, (b)Sensitivity, (c)Specificity, (d)Precision, (e)FPR, (f)FNR, (g)NPV, (h)FDR, (i)F1-score, (j)MCC”
Overall performance analysis of the propsoed COVID-19 detection model with meta-heuristic based algorithms
| Measures | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | FPR | FNR | NPV | FDR | F1-Score | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO-EL-CNN-DF [ | 0.952637 | 0.939609 | 0.972678 | 0.981447 | 0.027322 | 0.060391 | 0.972678 | 0.018553 | 0.960073 | 0.903232 |
| GWO-EL-CNN-DF [ | 0.941873 | 0.921847 | 0.972678 | 0.981096 | 0.027322 | 0.078153 | 0.972678 | 0.018904 | 0.950549 | 0.882733 |
| WOA-EL-CNN-DF [ | 0.937567 | 0.907638 | 0.983607 | 0.988395 | 0.016393 | 0.092362 | 0.983607 | 0.011605 | 0.946296 | 0.876592 |
| TSA-EL-CNN-DF [ | 0.940797 | 0.912966 | 0.983607 | 0.988462 | 0.016393 | 0.087034 | 0.983607 | 0.011538 | 0.949215 | 0.882505 |
| SA-TSA-EL-CNN-DF | 0.970936 | 0.957371 | 0.991803 | 0.994465 | 0.008197 | 0.042629 | 0.991803 | 0.005535 | 0.975566 | 0.940775 |
Overall performance analysis of the propsoed COVID-19 detection model with existing machine learners
| Measures | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | FPR | FNR | NPV | FDR | F1-Score | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM [ | 0.796555 | 0.674956 | 0.983607 | 0.984456 | 0.016393 | 0.325044 | 0.983607 | 0.015544 | 0.800843 | 0.652977 |
| AutoEncoder [ | 0.805167 | 0.715808 | 0.942623 | 0.950472 | 0.057377 | 0.284192 | 0.942623 | 0.049528 | 0.816616 | 0.645917 |
| NB [ | 0.838536 | 0.763766 | 0.953552 | 0.961969 | 0.046448 | 0.236234 | 0.953552 | 0.038031 | 0.851485 | 0.701502 |
| Ensemble [ | 0.875135 | 0.811723 | 0.972678 | 0.978587 | 0.027322 | 0.188277 | 0.972678 | 0.021413 | 0.887379 | 0.766572 |
| RNN [ | 0.850377 | 0.769094 | 0.97541 | 0.979638 | 0.02459 | 0.230906 | 0.97541 | 0.020362 | 0.861692 | 0.728427 |
| LSTM [ | 0.855759 | 0.774423 | 0.980874 | 0.984199 | 0.019126 | 0.225577 | 0.980874 | 0.015801 | 0.866799 | 0.738912 |
| SA-TSA-EL-CNN-DL | 0.970936 | 0.957371 | 0.991803 | 0.994465 | 0.008197 | 0.042629 | 0.991803 | 0.005535 | 0.975566 | 0.940775 |
Fig. 12Comparative analysis of the proposed COVID-19 detection model with existing methods in terms of “(a)Accuracy, (b)Sensitivity, (c)Specificity, (d)Precision, (e)FPR, (f)FNR, and (g) F1-score”