| Literature DB >> 35053041 |
Mahmoud Ragab1,2, Khalid Eljaaly3, Nabil A Alhakamy4,5,6, Hani A Alhadrami7,8,9, Adel A Bahaddad10, Sayed M Abo-Dahab11, Eied M Khalil12,13.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide, and medicinal resources have become inadequate in several regions. Computed tomography (CT) scans are capable of achieving precise and rapid COVID-19 diagnosis compared to the RT-PCR test. At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), find it useful to design COVID-19 diagnoses using chest CT scans. In this aspect, this study concentrates on the design of an artificial intelligence-based ensemble model for the detection and classification (AIEM-DC) of COVID-19. The AIEM-DC technique aims to accurately detect and classify the COVID-19 using an ensemble of DL models. In addition, Gaussian filtering (GF)-based preprocessing technique is applied for the removal of noise and improve image quality. Moreover, a shark optimization algorithm (SOA) with an ensemble of DL models, namely recurrent neural networks (RNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), and gated recurrent unit (GRU), is employed for feature extraction. Furthermore, an improved bat algorithm with a multiclass support vector machine (IBA-MSVM) model is applied for the classification of CT scans. The design of the ensemble model with optimal parameter tuning of the MSVM model for COVID-19 classification shows the novelty of the work. The effectiveness of the AIEM-DC technique take place on benchmark CT image data set, and the results reported the promising classification performance of the AIEM-DC technique over the recent state-of-the-art approaches.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; deep learning; ensemble models; machine learning; metaheuristics
Year: 2021 PMID: 35053041 PMCID: PMC8773139 DOI: 10.3390/biology11010043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1The process flow of proposed model.
Figure 2Flowchart of SOA.
Figure 3(a) COVID, (b) non-COVID: sample images.
Figure 4Confusion matrix of AIEM-DC technique under ten executions.
Results analysis of proposed AIEM-DC model in terms of various measures.
| No. of Execution | TPR | TNR | Accuracy | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Execution-1 | 0.9570 | 0.9698 | 0.9638 | 0.9612 |
| Execution-2 | 0.9685 | 0.9748 | 0.9718 | 0.9699 |
| Execution-3 | 0.9599 | 0.9773 | 0.9692 | 0.9668 |
| Execution-4 | 0.9713 | 0.9698 | 0.9705 | 0.9686 |
| Execution-5 | 0.9628 | 0.9723 | 0.9678 | 0.9655 |
| Execution-6 | 0.9656 | 0.9723 | 0.9692 | 0.9670 |
| Execution-7 | 0.9713 | 0.9698 | 0.9705 | 0.9686 |
| Execution-8 | 0.9742 | 0.9748 | 0.9745 | 0.9728 |
| Execution-9 | 0.9742 | 0.9824 | 0.9786 | 0.9770 |
| Execution-10 | 0.9771 | 0.9849 | 0.9812 | 0.9799 |
| Average | 0.9682 | 0.9748 | 0.9717 | 0.9697 |
Figure 5Result analysis of AIEM-DC model with different measures.
Comparative analysis of existing with proposed AIEM-DC method with recent methods [35].
| Methods | TPR | TNR | Accuracy | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIEM-DC (Ours) | 0.9682 | 0.9748 | 0.9717 | 0.9697 |
| DLMMF | 0.9653 | 0.9581 | 0.9681 | 0.9673 |
| MNB-CD | 0.9600 | 0.9543 | 0.9620 | 0.9500 |
| SVM-CD | 0.9100 | 0.9170 | 0.9060 | 0.8600 |
| Conv. NN | 0.8773 | 0.8697 | 0.8736 | 0.8965 |
| Deep Transfer Model | 0.8961 | 0.9203 | 0.9075 | 0.9043 |
| ANN Model | 0.9378 | 0.9176 | 0.8600 | 0.9134 |
| CNN-LSTM Model | 0.9214 | 0.9198 | 0.8416 | 0.9001 |
Figure 6TPR analysis of AIEM-DC model with existing approaches.
Figure 7TNR analysis of the AIEM-DC model with existing approaches.
Figure 8Accuracy analysis of the AIEM-DC model with existing approaches.
Figure 9F-score analysis of the AIEM-DC model with existing approaches.