| Literature DB >> 35291673 |
Sadia Showkat1, Shaima Qureshi1.
Abstract
Because of COVID-19's effect on pulmonary tissues, Chest X-ray(CXR) and Computed Tomography (CT) images have become the preferred imaging modality for detecting COVID-19 infections at the early diagnosis stages, particularly when the symptoms are not specific. A significant fraction of individuals with COVID-19 have negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results; therefore, imaging studies coupled with epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data assist in the decision making. With the newer variants of COVID-19 emerging, the burden on diagnostic laboratories has increased manifold. Therefore, it is important to employ beyond laboratory measures to solve complex CXR image classification problems. One such tool is Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), one of the most dominant Deep Learning (DL) architectures. DL entails training a CNN for a task such as classification using extensive datasets. However, the labelled data for COVID-19 is scarce, proving to be a prime impediment to applying DL-assisted analysis. The available datasets are either scarce or too diversified to learn effective feature representations; therefore Transfer Learning (TL) approach is utilized. TL-based ResNet architecture has a powerful representational ability, making it popular in Computer Vision. The aim of this study is two-fold- firstly, to assess the performance of ResNet models for classifying Pneumonia cases from CXR images and secondly, to build a customized ResNet model and evaluate its contribution to the performance improvement. The global accuracies achieved by the five models i.e., ResNet18_v1, ResNet34_v1, ResNet50_v1, ResNet101_v1, ResNet152_v1 are 91.35%, 90.87%, 92.63%, 92.95%, and 92.95% respectively. ResNet50_v1 displayed the highest sensitivity of 97.18%, ResNet101_v1 showed the specificity of 94.02%, and ResNet18_v1 had the highest precision of 93.53%. The findings are encouraging, demonstrating the effectiveness of ResNet in the automatic detection of Pneumonia for COVID-19 diagnosis. The customized ResNet model presented in this study achieved 95% global accuracy, 95.65% precision, 92.74% specificity, and 95.9% sensitivity, thereby allowing a reliable analysis of CXR images to facilitate the clinical decision-making process. All simulations were carried in PyTorch utilizing Quadro 4000 GPU with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v4 @ 3.60 GHz processor and 63.9 GB useable RAM.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; COVID-19; Deep learning; ResNet; Transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35291673 PMCID: PMC8913041 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2022.104534
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemometr Intell Lab Syst ISSN: 0169-7439 Impact factor: 4.175
Fig. 1Role of CT/CXR imaging in COVID-19 diagnosis.
Fig. 2CXR images corresponding to (I)-‘Not Pneumonia’ and (II)-‘Pneumonia’ clinical category.
Fig. 3Residual learning.
Architectural variation in different ResNet models [33].
| Layer name | Output Size | 18 layer | 34 layer | 50 layer | 101 layer | 152 layer | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convol_1 | 112 × 112 | 7 × 7,64,stride = 2 | ||||||
| Convol_2 | 56 × 56 | 3 × 3, Max pool, stride = 2 | ||||||
| Convol_3 | 28 × 28 | |||||||
| Convol_4 | 14 × 14 | |||||||
| Convol_5 | 7 × 7 | |||||||
| 1 × 1 | Average Pooling 1000, Softmax function | |||||||
Fig. 4Concept of Layer Freezing.
Strategy I is followed when the dataset is dissimilar to the dataset in the pre-trained model.
Strategy II is followed when the dataset is similar to the dataset in the pre-trained model.
Fig. 5Comparison of the number of parameters in different ResNet models with Layer Freezing.
Fig. 6Architecture of the customized ResNet model.
Fig. 7Training process of ResNet variants; Training Vs Validation loss. ResNet18_v1, ResNet34_v1, ResNet50_v1, ResNet101_v1, ResNet152_v1 converged after 40, 56, 92, 50, 56 epochs respectively.
Fig. 8Comparison of Precision, Specificity, and Sensitivity achieved by models.
Comparative Analysis of the performance of ResNet variants for classifying Pneumonia from CXR images.
| NPV | 0.8782 | 0.9194 | 0.9476 | 0.88 | 0.9358 |
| FPR | 0.1068 | 0.1709 | 0.1496 | 0.0598 | 0.1282 |
| FDR | 0.0648 | 0.0969 | 0.0845 | 0.0374 | 0.0739 |
| FNR | 0.0744 | 0.0436 | 0.0282 | 0.0769 | 0.0359 |
| Accuracy | 0.9135 | 0.9087 | 0.9263 | 0.9295 | 0.9295 |
| F1 Score | 0.9304 | 0.929 | 0.9428 | 0.9424 | 0.9447 |
| MCC | 0.8161 | 0.8038 | 0.8424 | 0.8528 | 0.8488 |
ROC curves: The ROC curve graphs (1 – Specificity) Vs. Sensitivity.
Fig. 9ROC Curve Analysis of ResNet models.
Fig. 10Training of Customized ResNet Model: Training and Validation loss Vs. Epochs.
Classification report and Confusion matrix recorded on customized ResNet.
| Recall | Precision | F1-score | Support | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Pneumonia | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 234 |
| Pneumonia | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 390 |
| Accuracy | 0.95 | 624 | ||
| Macro Average | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 624 |
| Weighted Average | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 624 |
Fig. 11Classification report and confusion matrix recorded on customized ResNet model.
Fig. 13Comparison of Accuracy achieved by our customized model Vs. ResNet variants.
Fig. 12ROC curve of customized ResNet model.
Fig. 14Performance comparison of proposed customized ResNet18 model with ResNet18_v1.