| Literature DB >> 35069953 |
Seifeddine Messaoud1, Soulef Bouaafia1, Amna Maraoui1, Lazhar Khriji2, Ahmed Chiheb Ammari2, Mohsen Machhout1.
Abstract
At the end of 2019, the infectious coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was reported for the first time in Wuhan, and, since then, it has become a public health issue in China and even worldwide. This pandemic has devastating effects on societies and economies around the world, and poor countries and continents are likely to face particularly serious and long-lasting damage, which could lead to large epidemic outbreaks because of the lack of financial and health resources. The increasing number of COVID-19 tests gives more information about the epidemic spread, and this can help contain the spread to avoid more infection. As COVID-19 keeps spreading, medical products, especially those needed to perform blood tests, will become scarce as a result of the high demand and insufficient supply and logistical means. However, technological tests based on deep learning techniques and medical images could be useful in fighting this pandemic. In this perspective, we propose a COVID-19 disease diagnosis (CDD) tool that implements a deep learning technique to provide automatic symptoms checking and COVID-19 detection. Our CDD scheme implements two main steps. First, the patient's symptoms are checked, and the infection probability is predicted. Then, based on the infection probability, the patient's lungs will be diagnosed by an automatic analysis of X-ray or computerized tomography (CT) images, and the presence of the infection will be accordingly confirmed or not. The numerical results prove the efficiency of the proposed scheme by achieving an accuracy value over 90% compared with the other schemes.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35069953 PMCID: PMC8767384 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6786203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol ISSN: 1712-9532 Impact factor: 2.471
Figure 1Proposed healthcare center for patient's COVID-19 diagnosis.
Figure 2PSC based on regression model.
Algorithm 1ML techniques for patient's symptoms checker.
VGG19 model for the proposed scheme.
| Layer (type) | Output shape | Parameters number |
|---|---|---|
| Input_1 (inputLayer) | (None, 224, 224, 3) | 0 |
| Block1_conv1 (conv2D) | (None, 224, 224, 64) | 1792 |
| Block1_conv2 (conv2D) | (None, 224, 224, 64) | 36928 |
| Block1_pool (maxPooling2D) | (None, 112, 112, 64) | 0 |
| Block2_conv1 (conv2D) | (None, 112, 112, 128) | 73856 |
| Block2_conv2 (conv2D) | (None, 112, 112, 128) | 147584 |
| Block2_pool (maxPooling2D) | (None, 56, 56, 128) | 0 |
| Block3_conv1 (conv2D) | (None, 56, 56, 256) | 295168 |
| Block3_conv2 (conv2D) | (None, 56, 56, 256) | 590080 |
| Block3_conv3 (conv2D) | (None, 56, 56, 256) | 590080 |
| Block3_conv4 (conv2D) | (None, 56, 56, 256) | 590080 |
| Block3_pool (maxPooling2D) | (None, 28, 28, 256) | 0 |
| Block4_conv1 (conv2D) | (None, 28, 28, 512) | 1180160 |
| Block4_conv2 (conv2D) | (None, 28, 28, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block4_conv3 (conv2D) | (None, 28, 28, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block4_conv4 (conv2D) | (None, 28, 28, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block4_pool (maxPooling2D) | (None, 14, 14, 512) | 0 |
| Block5_conv1 (conv2D) | (None, 14, 14, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block5_conv2 (conv2D) | (None, 14, 14, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block5_conv3 (conv2D) | (None, 14, 14, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block5_conv4 (conv2D) | (None, 14, 14, 512) | 2359808 |
| Block5_pool (maxPooling2D) | (None, 7, 7, 512) | 0 |
| Flatten (flatten) | (None, 25088) | 0 |
| Fc1 (dense) | (None, 4096) | 102764544 |
| Dropout (dropout) | (None, 4096) | 0 |
| Fc2 (dense) | (None, 4096) | 16781312 |
| Dropout_1 (dropout) | (None, 4096) | 0 |
| Fc3 (dense) | (None, 8192) | 33562624 |
| Dropout_2 (dropout) | (None, 8192) | 0 |
| Fc4 (dense) | (None, 8192) | 67117056 |
| Dropout_3 (dropout) | (None, 8192) | 0 |
| Fc5 (dense) | (None, 8192) | 67117056 |
| Dropout_4 (dropout) | (None, 8192) | 0 |
| Fc6 (dense) | (None, 16384) | 134234112 |
| Dropout_5 (dropout) | (None, 16384) | 0 |
| Dense_class_2 (dense) | (None, 2) | 32770 |
Figure 3VGGNet model for COVID-19 diagnosis.
Symptoms dataset.
| Patient ID | 1 | 2 | 3 | 270 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Female | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | 28 | 51 | 37 | 25 |
| Fever | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cough | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Shortness of breath | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sore throat | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chills | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muscle pain | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nausea | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vomiting | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Headache | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malaise | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Output (classes) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
X-ray and CT datasets.
| Datasets | COVID-19 | Normal |
|---|---|---|
| CT images | 349 | 397 |
| X-ray images | 910 | 1341 |
| Combined images | 1259 | 1738 |
Figure 4Example of X-ray and CT images of a normal patient and a COVID-19 patient.
Performance evaluation for machine learning models.
| ML model | Accuracy score | Class | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic | 0.518 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 18 |
| regression | 1 | 0.40 | 0.89 | 0.55 | 9 | |
|
| ||||||
| KNN | 0.444 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 18 |
| 1 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.44 | 9 | ||
|
| ||||||
| SVM | 0.481 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 18 |
| 1 | 0.37 | 0.78 | 0.50 | 9 | ||
Figure 5PSC application.
Performance of VGG19 network based on X-ray dataset.
| Metrics | COVID-19 | Normal |
|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| Recall | 0.96 | 0.98 |
| Specificity | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| F1-score | 0.97 | 0.98 |
Figure 6Accuracy and loss for COVID-19 detection.
Figure 7Tested VGG19 model.
Performance of VGG19 network based on CT dataset.
| Metrics | COVID-19 | Normal |
|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.73 | 0.85 |
| Recall | 0.86 | 0.72 |
| Specificity | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| F1-score | 0.79 | 0.78 |
Figure 8Accuracy and loss for COVID-19 detection.
Figure 9Tested VGG19 model.
Performance of VGG19 network based on combined dataset.
| Metrics | COVID-19 | Normal |
|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.86 | 0.91 |
| Recall | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| Specificity | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| F1-score | 0.87 | 0.90 |
Figure 10Accuracy and loss for COVID-19 detection.
Figure 11Tested VGG19 model.
Performance comparison of the proposed VGG19 model with the state-of-the-art approaches.
| Approaches | Model | Datasets | Class | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | COVID-Net | X-ray | COVID-19 | 80 | 100 | 88.8 | 83.5 |
| Normal | 95.1 | 73.9 | 83.17 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| [ | CoroNet | X-ray | COVID-19 | 93.17 | 98.25 | 95.61 | 89.6 |
| Normal | 95.25 | 93.5 | 94.3 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| [ | VGG19+ | X-ray | COVID-19 | 83 | 100 | 91 | 90 |
| DenseNet201 | Normal | 100 | 80 | 89 | |||
|
| |||||||
| [ | CNN | CT | COVID-19 | 81.73 | 85 | 83.33 | 83 |
| Normal | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| [ | RF | X-ray | — | 96 | — | 95 | 95 |
| GBM | X-ray | — | 93 | — | 92 | 92 | |
| KNN | X-ray | — | 99 | — | 93 | 93 | |
|
| |||||||
| [ | EfficientNet-B4+CLAHE | CT | — | 86.81 | 78.27 | 82.32 | 83.43 |
|
| |||||||
| Proposed | VGG19 | CT | COVID-19 | 73 | 86 | 79 | 86 |
| Normal | 85 | 72 | 78 | ||||
| X-ray | COVID-19 | 97 | 96 | 97 | 97 | ||
| Normal | 97 | 98 | 98 | ||||
| CT + X-ray | COVID-19 | 86 | 89 | 87 | 90 | ||
| Normal | 91 | 89 | 90 | ||||