| Literature DB >> 35232390 |
Utku Can Aytaç1, Ali Güneş2, Naim Ajlouni3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: AI for medical diagnosis has made a tremendous impact by applying convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to medical image classification and momentum plays an essential role in stochastic gradient optimization algorithms for accelerating or improving training convolutional neural networks. In traditional optimizers in CNNs, the momentum is usually weighted by a constant. However, tuning hyperparameters for momentum can be computationally complex. In this paper, we propose a novel adaptive momentum for fast and stable convergence.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive momentum methods; Backpropagation algorithm; Convolutional neural networks; Medical image classification; Nonconvex optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35232390 PMCID: PMC8886705 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00755-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Samples from REMBRANDT brain tumor dataset
Fig. 2Samples from the NIH chest X-ray dataset
Fig. 3Samples from the Covid-19 CT scan dataset
Example of model architecture and parameters
| Layer | Output shape | Total parameter |
|---|---|---|
| Convolution | 64 | 896 |
| Batch Norm | 64 | 128 |
| Dropout | 64 | 0 |
| Convolution | 62 | 18.496 |
| Batch Norm | 62 | 256 |
| Max Pool | 15 | 0 |
| Convolution | 15 | 73,856 |
| Batch Norm | 15 | 512 |
| Flatten | 28,800 | 0 |
| Dense | 512 | 14.746.112 |
| Batch | 512 | 2048 |
| Dropout | 512 | 0 |
| Dense | 4 | 516 |
Fig. 4Proposed CNN Architecture
Defining the terms TP, FP, FN, TN
| Predicted label | Actual Label | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | Positive | True positive (TP) |
| Positive | Negative | False positive (FP) |
| Negative | Positive | False negative (FN) |
| Negative | Negative | True negative (TN) |
Accuracy comparison among the proposed method on REMBRANDT brain tumor dataset
| Epoch | Adam | RMSprop | SGD | Adaptive momentum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.73 |
| 2 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.83 |
| 3 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.88 |
| 4 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.90 |
| 5 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.91 |
Accuracy comparison among the proposed method on NIH chest X-ray dataset
| Epoch | Adam | RMSprop | SGD | Adaptive momentum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.82 |
| 2 | 0.84 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
| 3 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 |
| 4 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.85 |
| 5 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
Accuracy comparison among the proposed method on Covid-19 dataset
| Epoch | Adam | RMSprop | SGD | Adaptive momentum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.85 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 0.87 |
| 2 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| 3 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.92 |
| 4 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.82 |
| 5 | 0.93 | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.92 |
Classification results of proposed model
| Tumor type | Precision | Recall | F1 score |
|---|---|---|---|
| REMBRANDT | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| NIH chest X-ray | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
| Covid-19 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.93 |
Accuracy comparison among the proposed and state of the art methods
| REMBRANDT | HGAPSO [ | FATRS [ | Proposed method |
| Test accuracy | 0.62 | 0.90 | 0.95 |
| NIH chest X-ray | GAC [ | DNT [ | Proposed method |
| Test accuracy | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.85 |
| Covid-19 | FC [ | DN [ | Proposed method |
| Test accuracy | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.93 |
Accuracy comparison of pre-trained CNN models with proposed method on different medical image datasets
| Dataset | Xception | ResNet50 | VGG16 | Proposed model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REMBRANDT | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
| Chest X-ray | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 0.85 |
| Covid-19 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.52 | 0.93 |
Fig. 5Convergence curve of fine-tune process