| Literature DB >> 35207017 |
Grace Ugochi Nneji1, Jianhua Deng1, Happy Nkanta Monday2, Md Altab Hossin3, Sandra Obiora3, Saifun Nahar4, Jingye Cai1.
Abstract
Computed Tomography has become a vital screening method for the detection of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). With the high mortality rate and overload for domain experts, radiologists, and clinicians, there is a need for the application of a computerized diagnostic technique. To this effect, we have taken into consideration improving the performance of COVID-19 identification by tackling the issue of low quality and resolution of computed tomography images by introducing our method. We have reported about a technique named the modified enhanced super resolution generative adversarial network for a better high resolution of computed tomography images. Furthermore, in contrast to the fashion of increasing network depth and complexity to beef up imaging performance, we incorporated a Siamese capsule network that extracts distinct features for COVID-19 identification.The qualitative and quantitative results establish that the proposed model is effective, accurate, and robust for COVID-19 screening. We demonstrate the proposed model for COVID-19 identification on a publicly available dataset COVID-CT, which contains 349 COVID-19 and 463 non-COVID-19 computed tomography images. The proposed method achieves an accuracy of 97.92%, sensitivity of 98.85%, specificity of 97.21%, AUC of 98.03%, precision of 98.44%, and F1 score of 97.52%. Our approach obtained state-of-the-art performance, according to experimental results, which is helpful for COVID-19 screening. This new conceptual framework is proposed to play an influential task in the issue facing COVID-19 and related ailments, with the availability of few datasets.Entities:
Keywords: Siamese network; adversarial learning; computed tomography; convolutional neural network; deep learning; super-resolution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207017 PMCID: PMC8871692 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10020403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Scaling images at different resolutions to a fixed resolution using an image scaling adaptive module.
Figure 2A structural configuration of ESRGAN+ where feature extraction and most computation are performed on the LR image feature. We re-design the structure for better optimization and performance by making a few modifications to the generator structure. The transition from SRGAN to MESRGAN+ is equally showcased.
Figure 3Our proposed modified Enhanced Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Network Plus (MESRGAN+) and Siamese Capsule Network (Siamese-CapsNet).
Comparison of the structural configuration of SRGAN, ESRGAN, ESRGAN+, and our proposed MESRGAN+ including their reported PSNR and Perceptual Index using a COVID-CT dataset.
| Parameter | SRGAN | ESRGAN | ESRGAN+ | MESRGAN+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residual block of the generator | Conv(3, 64, 1) | Conv(3, 64, 1) | Conv(3, 64, 1) | Conv(3, 64, 1) |
| Input size | LR | LR | LR | LR |
| PSNR | 19.28 dB | 19.01 dB | 18.47 dB | 18.24 dB |
| Perceptual Index | 2.78 | 2.49 | 2.18 | 2.01 |
| SSIM | 0.726 | 0.839 | 0.858 | 0.863 |
Figure 4A quantitative comparison results of our proposed model, MESRGAN+, and other selected state-of-the-art models with the same dataset. The PSNR is reported on the left, Perceptual index value is reported in the middle, and the SSIM is reported on the right.
Comparing the effect of DWT-pooling and Max-pooling on both the Capsule Network and Siamese Capsule Network in terms of performance accuracy.
| Model | With DWT-Pooling | With Max-Pooling | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC (%) | ACC (%) | ACC (%) | |
| Capsule Network | 93.92 | 91.64 | 2.28 |
| Siamese Capsule Network | 97.10 | 94.89 | 2.21 |
Comparing the effect of regularization on both the Capsule Network and Siamese Capsule Network in terms of performance accuracy.
| Model | With Regularizer | W/o Regularizer | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC (%) | ACC (%) | ACC (%) | |
| Capsule Network (Max-pooling) | 92.79 | 91.64 | 1.15 |
| Capsule Network (DWT-pooling) | 94.66 | 93.92 | 0.74 |
| Siamese Capsule Network (Max-pooling) | 96.03 | 94.89 | 1.14 |
| Siamese Capsule Network (DWT-pooling) | 97.92 | 97.10 | 0.82 |
Performance evaluation metrics for the proposed model in comparison with other methods using the same dataset.
| Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PREC (%) | F1-Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 86.28 | 86.64 | 85.81 | 86.13 | 86.59 | 86.62 |
| Siamese AlexNet | 87.93 | 88.77 | 87.01 | 87.65 | 88.81 | 88.99 |
| VGG 16 | 90.51 | 91.70 | 89.23 | 91.48 | 91.01 | 91.36 |
| Siamese VGG 16 | 92.47 | 92.89 | 93.13 | 92.52 | 92.92 | 92.86 |
| ResNet50 | 93.91 | 93.64 | 91.77 | 93.27 | 93.51 | 93.48 |
| Siamese ResNet50 | 94.72 | 94.37 | 95.58 | 95.23 | 94.88 | 94.62 |
| Capsule Network | 95.85 | 96.41 | 95.94 | 97.12 | 96.37 | 96.49 |
| MERSGAN-Siamese CapNet | 97.92 | 98.85 | 97.21 | 98.03 | 98.44 | 97.52 |
Figure 5Performance accuracy in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models for COVID-19 identification.
Figure 6Performance ROC in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models for COVID-19 identification.
Figure 7Performance precision–recall curve in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models for COVID-19 identification.
Performance comparison with other state-of-the-art models with our proposed model.
| Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Song et al. [ | 86.0 | 96.0 | 77.0 |
| Tang et al. [ | 87.5 | 93.3 | 74.5 |
| Wang et al. [ | 93.3 | 91.4 | 90.5 |
| Zheng et al. [ | 90.1 | 90.7 | 91.1 |
| Shi et al. [ | 89.4 | 90.7 | 87.2 |
| Jin et al. [ | 95.2 | 97.4 | 92.2 |
| Xu et al. [ | 86.7 | 87.9 | 90.7 |
| MERSGAN-Siamese CapNet | 97.92 | 98.85 | 97.21 |
Performance comparison of our proposed model with selected COVID-19 models using the same COVID-19 CT dataset.
| Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng et al. [ | 92.77 | 91.83 | 92.05 |
| Shi et al. [ | 90.31 | 90.94 | 89.62 |
| Jin et al. [ | 96.86 | 97.09 | 90.17 |
| Xu et al. [ | 87.88 | 89.25 | 91.42 |
| MERSGAN-Siamese CapNet | 97.92 | 98.85 | 97.21 |