| Literature DB >> 35161958 |
Ejaz Khan1, Muhammad Zia Ur Rehman2, Fawad Ahmed3, Faisal Abdulaziz Alfouzan4, Nouf M Alzahrani5, Jawad Ahmad6.
Abstract
Recent technological developments pave the path for deep learning-based techniques to be used in almost every domain of life. The precision of deep learning techniques make it possible for these to be used in the medical field for the classification and detection of various diseases. Recently, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has put a lot of pressure on the health system all around the world. The diagnosis of COVID-19 is possible by PCR testing and medical imagining. Since COVID-19 is highly contagious, diagnosis using chest X-ray is considered safe in various situations. In this study, a deep learning-based technique is proposed to classify COVID-19 infection from other non-COVID-19 infections. To classify COVID-19, three different pre-trained models named EfficientNetB1, NasNetMobile and MobileNetV2 are used. The augmented dataset is used for training deep learning models while two different training strategies have been used for classification. In this study, not only are the deep learning model fine-tuned but also the hyperparameters are fine-tuned, which significantly improves the performance of the fine-tuned deep learning models. Moreover, the classification head is regularized to improve the performance. For the evaluation of the proposed techniques, several performance parameters are used to gauge the performance. EfficientNetB1 with regularized classification head outperforms the other models. The proposed technique successfully classifies four classes that include COVID-19, viral pneumonia, lung opacity, and normal, with an accuracy of 96.13%. The proposed technique shows superiority in terms of accuracy when compared with recent techniques present in the literature.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; chest X-rays; classification; deep learning; transfer learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161958 PMCID: PMC8838072 DOI: 10.3390/s22031211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Sample images of original dataset [32,35].
Composition of COVID-19 dataset [32,35].
| Data Composition | BIMCV-COVID19+ [ | German Medical School [ | SIRM, GitHub, Kaggle, and Twitter [ | GitHub [ | RSNA [ | Kaggle [ | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2473 | 183 | 560 | 400 | 3616 | ||
|
| 6012 | 6012 | |||||
|
| 8851 | 1341 | 10,192 | ||||
|
| 1345 |
Figure 2Detailed workflow of proposed technique.
Figure 3Sample images of original dataset after performing data augmentation.
Architecture of EfficientNetB0 Baseline.
| Stage | Operator | Resolution | Channel | Layers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conv3 × 3 | 224 × 224 | 32 | 1 |
| 2 | MBConv1, k3 × 3 | 112 × 112 | 16 | 1 |
| 3 | MBConv6, k3 × 3 | 112 × 112 | 24 | 2 |
| 4 | MBConv6, k5 × 5 | 56 × 56 | 40 | 2 |
| 5 | MBConv6, k3 × 3 | 28 × 28 | 80 | 3 |
| 6 | MBConv6, k5 × 5 | 14 × 14 | 112 | 3 |
| 7 | MBConv6, k5 × 5 | 14 × 14 | 192 | 4 |
| 8 | MBConv6, k3 × 3 | 7 × 7 | 320 | 1 |
| 9 | Conv1 × 1 & Pooling & FC | 7 × 7 | 1280 | 1 |
Figure 4Illustration of transfer learning.
Classification results using Strategy I.
| Deep Learning Models | Evaluation Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Sensitivity | F1 Score | |
| EfficientNetB1 | 92% | 91.75% | 94.50% | 92.75% |
| NasNetMobile | 89.30% | 89.25% | 91.75% | 91% |
| MobileNetV2 | 90.03% | 92.25% | 92% | 91.75% |
Figure 5Confusion matrix using Strategy I. (a) EfficientNetB1 (b) NasNetMobile (c) MobileNetV2.
Classification results using Strategy II.
| Deep learning Models | Evaluation Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Sensitivity | F1 Score | |
| EfficientNetB1 |
| 97.25% | 96.50% | 97.50% |
| NasNetMobile | 94.81% | 95.50% | 95% | 95.25% |
| MobileNetV2 | 93.96% | 94.50% | 95% | 94.50% |
Figure 6Confusion matrix using Strategy II. (a) EfficientNetB1 (b) NasNetMobile (c) MobileNetV2.
Figure 7Training plots of the best performing model, EfficientNetB1: (a) accuracy plot; (b) loss plot.
Figure 8Performance comparison between Strategy I and Strategy II.
Comparison with other techniques.
| Reference | Year | # of Classes | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Khan et al. [ | 2020 | 4 | 89.6% |
| Rahman et al. [ | 2021 | 3 | 96.29% |
| Abbas et al. [ | 2021 | 3 | 93.1% |
|
|
|
|
|