| Literature DB >> 35132394 |
Debanjan Das1, Sagnik Ghosal2, Saraju P Mohanty3.
Abstract
The pandemic of novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is widespread all over the world causing serious health problems as well as serious impact on the global economy. Reliable and fast testing of the COVID-19 has been a challenge for researchers and healthcare practitioners. In this work, we present a novel machine learning (ML) integrated X-ray device in Healthcare Cyber-Physical System (H-CPS) or smart healthcare framework (called "CoviLearn") to allow healthcare practitioners to perform automatic initial screening of COVID-19 patients. We propose convolutional neural network (CNN) models of X-ray images integrated into an X-ray device for automatic COVID-19 detection. The proposed CoviLearn device will be useful in detecting if a person is COVID-19 positive or negative by considering the chest X-ray image of individuals. CoviLearn will be useful tool doctors to detect potential COVID-19 infections instantaneously without taking more intrusive healthcare data samples, such as saliva and blood. COVID-19 attacks the endothelium tissues that support respiratory tract, and X-rays images can be used to analyze the health of a patient's lungs. As all healthcare centers have X-ray machines, it could be possible to use proposed CoviLearn X-rays to test for COVID-19 without the especial test kits. Our proposed automated analysis system CoviLearn which has 98.98% accuracy will be able to save valuable time of medical professionals as the X-ray machines come with a drawback as it needed a radiology expert.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Deep neural network (DNN); Healthcare-Cyber-Physical System (H-CPS); Machine learning; Smart healthcare; X-ray
Year: 2022 PMID: 35132394 PMCID: PMC8811348 DOI: 10.1007/s42979-022-01035-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SN Comput Sci ISSN: 2661-8907
Fig. 1Process flow of proposed COVID-19 classification
Comparative perspective with related AI works for COVID-19 detection
| Model | Dataset used | Method | Results | Shortcoming (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. [ | 15000 chest radiography images of confirmed COVID-19 positive and negative cases | Deep convolutional neural network called COVIDNet | Accuracy-92.4 | Comparatively lower accuracy and sensitivity |
| Li et al. [ | 4356 Volumetric chest CT images that included community acquired pneumonia (CAP) and other non-pneumonia cases | 3-Dimensional Convolutional ResNet-50 network, termed COVNetDeep | AUC-0.96 | High computational cost and requirement of professionals to analyze the results |
| Gozes et al. [ | CT images from 157 COVID affected patients | ResNet-50 | AUC-0.996 | Relatively small testing dataset |
| Xu et al. [ | 618 CT samples from COVID-19 patients (219), influenza-A infected (224), and healthy individuals (175) | Location attention network using ResNet-18 | Accuracy-86.7 | Lower accuracy |
| Ghoshal et al. [ | 5941 Chest radiography images samples from 4 classes: healthy, bacterial pneumonia, non-COVID-19 pneumonia | Drop-weights based Bayesian CNNs | Accuracy-89.92 | Lower accuracy |
| Wang et al. [ | 1065 CT images (325 COVID, 740 Viral Pneumonia) | Modified inception transfer-learning model | Accuracy-79.3 | Lower accuracy and imbalanced dataset |
| Fang et al. [ | 133 CT images of COVID-19 patients | Multilayer perceptron combined with an LSTM | AUC-0.954 | Relatively smaller dataset size and lower accuracy |
| Jin Feng et al. [ | 970 CT images of COVID-19 positive and 1385 COVID-19 negative patients | 2-Dimensional CNN | Accuracy-94.98 | Lower accuracy and lack of generalization |
| Jin et al. [ | 1136 CT images (723 COVID-19 positive) | 3-Dimensional UNet and ResNet-50 | Specificity-92.2 | Lower accuracy |
| Narin et al. [ | Chest X-ray images from 50 COVID-19 positive and 50 COVID-19 negative patients | ResNet-50 | Accuracy-98 | Relatively small testing dataset |
| Chowdhury et al. [ | 1341 Normal, 1345 Viral Pneumonia and 190 COVID-19 chest X-ray images | Combination of AlexNet, ResNet-18, DenseNet-201, and SqueezeNet | Accuracy-98.3 | High computational cost, large number of training hyperparameters, and class imbalance |
| Maghdid et al. [ | 170 X-ray and 361 CT images | CNN augmented with a pre-trained AlexNet using transfer learning | Accuracy-98 | High computational cost and lack of implementation in smart healthcare |
Fig. 2Schematic representation of the Healthcare Cyber-Physical System (H-CPS) ecosystem concept for combating COVID-19
Fig. 3The proposed next-generation X-ray device of CoviLearn integrated with machine learning models
Fig. 4Organization of the DNN with classification layers
Performance metrics for different deep learning techniques
| Models explored | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Total parameter | AUC area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN I | 0.9592 | 0.9583 | 0.9600 | 23,696,066 | 0.959 |
| DNN II | 0.9694 | 0.9792 | 0.9600 | 42,757,826 | 0.970 |
| DNN III | 0.9898 | 1.0000 | 0.9800 | 7,103,234 | 0.990 |
| DNN IV | 0.9796 | 1.0000 | 0.9600 | 12,749,570 | 0.980 |
Fig. 5Confusion matrix for a DNN I, b DNN II, c DNN III, and d DNN IV
Fig. 6Comparison of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC)
Fig. 7Classification accuracy in the deep learning system validation
Fig. 8Binary cross entropy loss in the deep learning system validation
Comparison of results with existing recent similar works
| Methods | Technique | Accuracy (in |
|---|---|---|
| Xu at al. [ | Deep-CNN model 3D-DL model | 86.7 |
| Wang et al. [ | CovidNet, VGG-19 and ResNet-50 model | 93.3 |
| Ozturk et al. [ | DarkNet and YOLO | 98.08 |
| Khatri et al. [ | EMD approach | 83.30 |
| Togacar et al. [ | Deep-CNN model | 96.84 |
| Deep-CNN-based DenseNet | 98.98 |
Comparison with existing deep learning-based COVID-19 detection model
| Methods | Accuracy (in | Dataset size |
|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. [ | 92.4 | 15,000 |
| Xu et al. [ | 86.7 | 618 |
| Ghoshal et al. [ | 89.92 | 5941 |
| Wang et al. [ | 79.3 | 1065 |
| Jin et al. [ | 94.98 | 2355 |
| Narin et al. [ | 98 | 100 |
| Chowdhury et al. [ | 98.3 | 2876 |
| Maghdid et al. [ | 98 (X-ray), 94.1 (CT) | 531 |
| CoviLearn | 98.98 | 250 |
Performance metrics at different stages of training
| Stage | Network | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial training | DNN I | 0.5887 | 0.5882 | 0.5892 |
| DNN II | 0.5949 | 0.6009 | 0.5892 | |
| DNN III | 0.6075 | 0.6137 | 0.6015 | |
| DNN IV | 0.6012 | 0.6137 | 0.5892 | |
| Transfer learning | DNN I | 0.9081 | 0.9072 | 0.9088 |
| DNN II | 0.9177 | 0.9270 | 0.9088 | |
| DNN III | 0.9370 | 0.9467 | 0.9278 | |
| DNN IV | 0.9274 | 0.9467 | 0.9088 | |
| Fine tuning | DNN I | 0.9592 | 0.9583 | 0.9600 |
| DNN II | 0.9694 | 0.9792 | 0.9600 | |
| DNN III | 0.9898 | 1.0000 | 0.9800 | |
| DNN IV | 0.9796 | 1.0000 | 0.9600 |