| Literature DB >> 35178233 |
S Sridhar1, J Amutharaj2, Prajoona Valsalan3, B Arthi4, S Ramkumar5, S Mathupriya6, T Rajendran7, Yosef Asrat Waji8.
Abstract
The anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) are the fundamental structures in preserving the common biomechanics of the knees and most frequently damaged knee ligaments. An ACL injury is a tear or sprain of the ACL, one of the fundamental ligaments in the knee. ACL damage most generally happens during sports, for example, soccer, ball, football, and downhill skiing, which include sudden stops or changes in direction, jumping, and landings. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a major role in the field of diagnosis these days. Specifically, it is effective for diagnosing the cruciate ligaments and any related meniscal tears. The primary objective of this research is to detect the ACL tear from MRI knee images, which can be useful to determine the knee abnormality. In this research, a Deep Convolution Neural Network (DCNN) based Inception-v3 deep transfer learning (DTL) model was proposed for classifying the ACL tear MRI images. Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification are the main processes performed in this research. The dataset utilized in this work was collected from the MRNet database. A total of 1,370 knee MRI images are used for evaluation. 70% of data (959 images) are used for training and testing, and 30% of data (411 images) are used in this model for performance analysis. The proposed DCNN with the Inception-v3 DTL model is evaluated and compared with existing deep learning models like VGG16, VGG19, Xception, and Inception ResNet-v28. The performance metrics like accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and F-measure are evaluated to estimate the performance analysis of the model. The model has obtained 99.04% training accuracy and 95.42% testing accuracy in performance analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35178233 PMCID: PMC8846973 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7872500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Difference between normal and torn ACL in MRI.
Figure 2Proposed model.
Figure 3Architecture of the proposed model.
Performance analysis of training evaluation.
| Models | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | 95.13 | 95.05 | 94.64 | 96.25 | 94.72 |
| VGG19 | 95.66 | 94.22 | 94.80 | 96.90 | 95.39 |
| Inception ResNet-v28 | 90.74 | 89.90 | 89.26 | 91.72 | 90.56 |
| Xception | 92.48 | 91.94 | 91.67 | 93.36 | 92.07 |
| Proposed | 99.04 | 98.96 | 98.45 | 99.18 | 98.81 |
Performance analysis of testing evaluation.
| Models | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | 85.45 | 85.74 | 84.23 | 85.67 | 85.19 |
| VGG19 | 87.90 | 87.50 | 86.06 | 88.72 | 86.09 |
| Inception ResNet-v28 | 89.91 | 89.32 | 88.35 | 90.43 | 89.24 |
| Xception | 92.25 | 91.48 | 91.29 | 93.11 | 91.92 |
| Proposed | 95.42 | 95.02 | 95.13 | 96.34 | 94.83 |
Figure 4Graphical plot of performance analysis of training.
Figure 5Graphical plot of performance analysis of testing.