| Literature DB >> 35026573 |
Mohamed Loey1, Shaker El-Sappagh2, Seyedali Mirjalili3.
Abstract
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is extremely infectious and rapidly spreading around the globe. As a result, rapid and precise identification of COVID-19 patients is critical. Deep Learning has shown promising performance in a variety of domains and emerged as a key technology in Artificial Intelligence. Recent advances in visual recognition are based on image classification and artefacts detection within these images. The purpose of this study is to classify chest X-ray images of COVID-19 artefacts in changed real-world situations. A novel Bayesian optimization-based convolutional neural network (CNN) model is proposed for the recognition of chest X-ray images. The proposed model has two main components. The first one utilizes CNN to extract and learn deep features. The second component is a Bayesian-based optimizer that is used to tune the CNN hyperparameters according to an objective function. The used large-scale and balanced dataset comprises 10,848 images (i.e., 3616 COVID-19, 3616 normal cases, and 3616 Pneumonia). In the first ablation investigation, we compared Bayesian optimization to three distinct ablation scenarios. We used convergence charts and accuracy to compare the three scenarios. We noticed that the Bayesian search-derived optimal architecture achieved 96% accuracy. To assist qualitative researchers, address their research questions in a methodologically sound manner, a comparison of research method and theme analysis methods was provided. The suggested model is shown to be more trustworthy and accurate in real world.Entities:
Keywords: Bayesian optimization; COVID-19; Convolutional neural network; Deep learning; Image classification; Optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35026573 PMCID: PMC8730711 DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Biol Med ISSN: 0010-4825 Impact factor: 4.589
Most data of published studies were imbalanced COVID-19 datasets.
| References | Dataset | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | Pneumonia | Normal | |
| Wang et al. [ | 565 | – | 537 |
| Chowdhury et al. [ | 219 | 1345 | 1341 |
| Loey et al. [ | 69 | bacterial = 79 | 79 |
| virus = 79 | |||
| Abbas et al. [ | 105 SARS = 11 | – | 80 |
| El-Rashidy et al. [ | 250 | – | 500 |
| Minaee et al. [ | 184 | – | 5000 |
| Wang et al. [ | 140 | 9576 | 8851 |
| Khan and Aslam [ | 195 | – | 862 |
| Sekeroglu and Ozsahin [ | 225 | 4292 | 1583 |
| Che Azemin et al. [ | 154 | – | 5828 |
Fig. 1The proposed dataset structures.
Fig. 2The proposed COVID-19 dataset split.
Fig. 3The proposed COVID-19 X-ray classification model for training.
Fig. 4The proposed COVID-19 X-ray classification model for testing.
The proposed hyperparameters from the Bayesian optimization for DL training.
| Hyperparameter | Range | Function | Data type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial learning rate | [0.001 1] | Logarithmic | Real number |
| SGD with momentum | [0.8 1] | None | Real number |
| Depth of the network | [ | none | Integer number |
| L2 regularization | [10−10 0.001] | Logarithmic | Real number |
Fig. 5Proposed custom CNN architecture for COVID-19 classification.
The outcomes of Bayesian-based tuned CNN model for scenario 1.
| Iter | Objective | depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2Regularize | Iter | Objective | depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2Regularize |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.26593 | 5 | 0.56005 | 0.89236 | 2.5293e-08 | 16 | 0.077562 | 2 | 0.010068 | 0.813 | 8.9211e-10 |
| 2 | 0.12835 | 2 | 0.45045 | 0.9174 | 2.0423e-10 | 17 | 0.21422 | 1 | 0.88155 | 0.80601 | 9.464e-07 |
| 3 | 0.1819 | 5 | 0.045905 | 0.86003 | 0.0030503 | 18 | 0.31671 | 1 | 0.95217 | 0.97863 | 0.00024883 |
| 4 | 0.12558 | 2 | 0.22518 | 0.85151 | 5.6765e-05 | 19 | 0.12281 | 1 | 0.010019 | 0.83885 | 6.3628e-08 |
| 5 | 0.076639 | 2 | 0.013965 | 0.87512 | 7.0055e-10 | 20 | 0.099723 | 2 | 0.040626 | 0.83333 | 2.1794e-10 |
| 6 | 0.094183 | 1 | 0.04873 | 0.88431 | 1.491e-10 | 21 | 0.067405 | 2 | 0.01063 | 0.84146 | 0.001894 |
| 7 | 0.091413 | 1 | 0.010025 | 0.88907 | 7.0909e-09 | 22 | 0.20314 | 5 | 0.011115 | 0.97862 | 7.4731e-05 |
| 8 | 0.061865 | 3 | 0.010232 | 0.91538 | 1.2663e-10 | 23 | 0.09603 | 1 | 0.012718 | 0.97888 | 4.3264e-09 |
| 9 | 0.1542 | 3 | 0.010113 | 0.97821 | 2.7617e-10 | 24 | 0.083102 | 3 | 0.011089 | 0.80001 | 2.0768e-08 |
| 10 | 0.092336 | 2 | 0.010307 | 0.91339 | 3.3622e-06 | 25 | 0.19852 | 3 | 0.99239 | 0.81422 | 3.1124e-10 |
| 11 | 0.10619 | 3 | 0.010329 | 0.89705 | 2.5414e-10 | 26 | 0.11357 | 2 | 0.016571 | 0.81267 | 0.008776 |
| 12 | 0.069252 | 2 | 0.010099 | 0.83021 | 1.0997e-08 | 27 | 0.085873 | 2 | 0.010446 | 0.81777 | 1.2133e-10 |
| 13 | 0.083102 | 2 | 0.010003 | 0.80689 | 9.7536e-07 | 28 | 0.36011 | 1 | 0.073301 | 0.97775 | 0.0050097 |
| 14 | 0.075716 | 1 | 0.010273 | 0.80193 | 7.0922e-05 | 29 | 0.070175 | 3 | 0.010102 | 0.83679 | 3.7223e-05 |
| 15 | 0.038781 | 2 | 0.010104 | 0.83095 | 7.9384e-06 |
Fig. 6(a) Confusion matrix of Scenario-1. (b) plot of the number of function evaluations vs min objective.
The outcomes of Bayesian-based tuned CNN in scenario 2.
| Iter | Objective | depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2Regularize | Iter | Objective | depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2Regularize |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.17359 | 5 | 0.56005 | 0.89236 | 2.5293e-08 | 16 | 0.39151 | 1 | 0.85309 | 0.80126 | 0.0047163 |
| 2 | 0.086796 | 2 | 0.45045 | 0.9174 | 2.0423e-10 | 17 | 0.097876 | 1 | 0.048194 | 0.81467 | 1.1155e-10 |
| 3 | 0.19668 | 5 | 0.045905 | 0.86003 | 0.0030503 | 18 | 0.065559 | 1 | 0.015893 | 0.92199 | 3.0676e-07 |
| 4 | 0.09603 | 2 | 0.22518 | 0.85151 | 5.6765e-05 | 19 | 0.089566 | 1 | 0.20578 | 0.83616 | 1.0967e-10 |
| 5 | 0.66759 | 2 | 0.96209 | 0.97666 | 1.0098e-10 | 20 | 0.057248 | 1 | 0.055434 | 0.81781 | 6.2685e-06 |
| 6 | 0.0988 | 2 | 0.69253 | 0.82806 | 2.3652e-08 | 21 | 0.057248 | 2 | 0.010601 | 0.90455 | 4.7382e-06 |
| 7 | 0.051708 | 1 | 0.045746 | 0.89761 | 1.5974e-08 | 22 | 0.047091 | 1 | 0.060467 | 0.91755 | 2.3564e-10 |
| 8 | 0.064635 | 1 | 0.027362 | 0.80004 | 0.000474 | 23 | 0.090489 | 1 | 0.043747 | 0.8017 | 5.659e-07 |
| 9 | 0.051708 | 1 | 0.017239 | 0.90674 | 0.00070454 | 24 | 0.064635 | 1 | 0.029504 | 0.91162 | 1.0623e-06 |
| 10 | 0.17452 | 1 | 0.91842 | 0.87403 | 1.1245e-10 | 25 | 0.065559 | 1 | 0.010295 | 0.83171 | 0.0034166 |
| 11 | 0.11634 | 5 | 0.010243 | 0.80031 | 0.0015368 | 26 | 0.075716 | 1 | 0.010218 | 0.81136 | 0.00069518 |
| 12 | 0.045245 | 1 | 0.1452 | 0.90559 | 5.8502e-10 | ||||||
| 13 | 0.073869 | 1 | 0.53902 | 0.8108 | 1.3185e-10 | 28 | 0.043398 | 1 | 0.010106 | 0.87598 | 0.00042163 |
| 14 | 0.057248 | 1 | 0.019588 | 0.90257 | 2.3604e-10 | 29 | 0.15605 | 4 | 0.25799 | 0.81222 | 1.2145e-10 |
| 15 | 0.3518 | 1 | 0.55331 | 0.90567 | 0.0022727 | 30 | 0.056325 | 1 | 0.065363 | 0.83903 | 1.1961e-05 |
Fig. 7(a) Confusion matrix of Scenario-2. (b) plot of the number of function evaluations vs min objective.
The outcomes of Bayesian-based tuned CNN in scenario-3.
| Iter | Objective | Depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2 Regularize | Iter | Objective | Depth | Learn rate | Momentum | L2 Regularize |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.073869 | 5 | 0.56005 | 0.89236 | 2.5293e-08 | 16 | 0.031394 | 1 | 0.3408 | 0.80021 | 2.085e-08 |
| 2 | 0.084026 | 2 | 0.45045 | 0.9174 | 2.0423e-10 | 17 | 0.061865 | 1 | 0.14746 | 0.80107 | 1.7148e-09 |
| 3 | 0.14681 | 5 | 0.045905 | 0.86003 | 0.0030503 | 18 | 0.1265 | 2 | 0.20049 | 0.97991 | 6.7533e-09 |
| 4 | 0.079409 | 2 | 0.22518 | 0.85151 | 5.6765e-05 | 19 | 0.34441 | 5 | 0.71311 | 0.97992 | 2.8196e-09 |
| 5 | 0.10249 | 4 | 0.57092 | 0.80002 | 5.0694e-05 | 20 | 0.065559 | 1 | 0.36462 | 0.80086 | 4.6695e-08 |
| 6 | 0.17359 | 5 | 0.60652 | 0.88909 | 2.5798e-08 | 21 | 0.13758 | 3 | 0.93362 | 0.84857 | 5.843e-09 |
| 7 | 0.078486 | 2 | 0.27832 | 0.87092 | 2.719e-07 | 22 | 0.056325 | 1 | 0.010313 | 0.84758 | 3.5044e-07 |
| 8 | 0.084026 | 2 | 0.64306 | 0.81325 | 5.4379e-09 | 23 | 0.054478 | 1 | 0.056957 | 0.92869 | 4.5579e-09 |
| 9 | 0.064635 | 3 | 0.020184 | 0.90189 | 1.1136e-10 | 24 | 0.048015 | 1 | 0.086999 | 0.81024 | 1.8238e-06 |
| 10 | 0.073869 | 1 | 0.99879 | 0.85691 | 3.9481e-10 | 25 | 0.056325 | 1 | 0.066059 | 0.97703 | 1.1357e-10 |
| 11 | 0.087719 | 3 | 0.082862 | 0.97899 | 1.7582e-07 | ||||||
| 12 | 0.1145 | 1 | 0.30907 | 0.96899 | 4.8241e-09 | 27 | 0.058172 | 1 | 0.010883 | 0.80102 | 8.7027e-09 |
| 13 | 0.068329 | 3 | 0.022298 | 0.80173 | 1.6709e-08 | 28 | 0.037858 | 1 | 0.010189 | 0.88753 | 1.5256e-06 |
| 14 | 0.033241 | 3 | 0.016754 | 0.80022 | 2.0167e-06 | 29 | 0.2096 | 5 | 0.92303 | 0.80051 | 2.6785e-07 |
| 15 | 0.63343 | 4 | 0.39236 | 0.97969 | 4.2755e-06 | 30 | 0.058172 | 1 | 0.011612 | 0.97707 | 1.0257e-07 |
Fig. 8(a) Confusion matrix of Scenario-3. (b) plot of the number of function evaluations vs min objective.
Comparison of the performance of several approaches in terms of accuracy.
| References | Method | Class | Dataset | Accuracy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | Pneumonia | Normal | ||||
| Wang et al. [ | TL | 2 | 565 | – | 537 | 96.7% |
| Chowdhury et al. [ | CNN | 3 | 219 | 1345 | 1341 | 96.5% |
| Loey et al. [ | TL | 4 | 69 | bacterial = 79 | 79 | 100% |
| virus = 79 | ||||||
| Abbas et al. [ | DeTraC | 3 | 105 SARS = 11 | – | 80 | 93.1% |
| El-Rashidy et al. [ | DL | 2 | 250 | – | 500 | 97.9% |
| Minaee et al. [ | TL | 2 | 184 | – | 5000 | 98% |
| Wang et al. [ | ResNet | 3 | 140 | 9576 | 8851 | 96.1% |
| Khan and Aslam [ | TL | 2 | 195 | – | 862 | 99.3% |
| Sekeroglu and Ozsahin [ | CNN | 3 | 225 | 4292 | 1583 | 98.5% |
| Che Azemin et al. [ | ResNet | 2 | 154 | – | 5828 | 71.9% |
Comparison of the performance of several scenarios in terms of accuracy.
| Scenarios | Depth of network | Learning rate | Momentum | L2Regularization | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario-1 | 2 | 0.010518 | 0.83379 | 1.606e-05 | 95.1% |
| Scenario-2 | 1 | 0.042721 | 0.84845 | 5.3403e-07 | 95.2% |
| Scenario-3 | 1 | 0.0104 | 0.80281 | 1.7329e-08 | 96% |