| Literature DB >> 35328249 |
Ibrahim Shawky Farahat1, Ahmed Sharafeldeen1, Mohamed Elsharkawy1, Ahmed Soliman1, Ali Mahmoud1, Mohammed Ghazal2, Fatma Taher3, Maha Bilal4, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel Razek4, Waleed Aladrousy5, Samir Elmougy5, Ahmed Elsaid Tolba5,6, Moumen El-Melegy7, Ayman El-Baz1.
Abstract
Early grading of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as ventilator support machines, are prime ways to help the world fight this virus and reduce the mortality rate. To reduce the burden on physicians, we developed an automatic Computer-Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system to grade COVID-19 from Computed Tomography (CT) images. This system segments the lung region from chest CT scans using an unsupervised approach based on an appearance model, followed by 3D rotation invariant Markov-Gibbs Random Field (MGRF)-based morphological constraints. This system analyzes the segmented lung and generates precise, analytical imaging markers by estimating the MGRF-based analytical potentials. Three Gibbs energy markers were extracted from each CT scan by tuning the MGRF parameters on each lesion separately. The latter were healthy/mild, moderate, and severe lesions. To represent these markers more reliably, a Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) was generated, then statistical markers were extracted from it, namely, 10th through 90th CDF percentiles with 10% increments. Subsequently, the three extracted markers were combined together and fed into a backpropagation neural network to make the diagnosis. The developed system was assessed on 76 COVID-19-infected patients using two metrics, namely, accuracy and Kappa. In this paper, the proposed system was trained and tested by three approaches. In the first approach, the MGRF model was trained and tested on the lungs. This approach achieved 95.83% accuracy and 93.39% kappa. In the second approach, we trained the MGRF model on the lesions and tested it on the lungs. This approach achieved 91.67% accuracy and 86.67% kappa. Finally, we trained and tested the MGRF model on lesions. It achieved 100% accuracy and 100% kappa. The results reported in this paper show the ability of the developed system to accurately grade COVID-19 lesions compared to other machine learning classifiers, such as k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), decision tree, naïve Bayes, and random forest.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Computer Assisted Diagnosis (CAD); Markov–Gibbs Random Field (MGRF); SARS-CoV-2; machine learning; neural network
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328249 PMCID: PMC8947065 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Illustrative examples of the three grades of COVID-19.
Figure 2An illustrative framework for the proposed CAD system to detect the severity of COVID-19 through the CT images.
Figure 3An illustrative example of the proposed segmentation approach for (a) healthy/mild, (b) moderate, and (c) severe COVID-19 infections. Note that the blue (green) border represents our segmentation (ground truth).
Figure 4Fourth-order LBP structure, is the central pixel, , , , and are the four neighbours, and r is the radius.
Figure 5An illustrative example of the estimation of CDF percentile feature from CDF.
Comparison between the proposed system and different machine learning classifiers using lung, hybrid, and lesion models.
| Class Evaluation | Overall Evaluation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classifier | Class | Recall | Precision | Overall Accuracy | Kappa | ||
|
| Random Forest [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | ||||
| Moderate | |||||||
| Severe | 100% | ||||||
| Decision Trees [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | |||||
| Moderate | 70% | ||||||
| Severe | |||||||
| Naive Bayes [ | Healthy/Mild | 100% | |||||
| Moderate | 50% | ||||||
| Severe | 70% | ||||||
| SVM [ | Healthy/Mild | 100% | |||||
| Moderate | |||||||
| Severe | 70% | ||||||
| KNN [ | Healthy/Mild | 60% | 75% | ||||
| Moderate | 80% | ||||||
| Severe | 75% | 100% | |||||
| Proposed System | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% |
|
|
| |
| Moderate | 100% | ||||||
| Severe | 100% | ||||||
|
| Random Forest [ | Healthy/Mild | 40% | 50% | 75% | ||
| Moderate | |||||||
| Severe | 75% | 100% | |||||
| Decision Trees [ | Healthy/Mild | 20% | 50% | ||||
| Moderate | |||||||
| Severe | |||||||
| Naive Bayes [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | |||||
| Moderate | 60% | ||||||
| Severe | 70% | ||||||
| SVM [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | 80% | 80% | |||
| Moderate | |||||||
| Severe | 70% | ||||||
| KNN [ | Healthy/Mild | 60% | 50% | ||||
| Moderate | 60% | ||||||
| Severe | |||||||
| Proposed System | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|
| |
| Moderate | 100% | ||||||
| Severe | 75% | 100% | |||||
|
| Random Forest [ | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| Moderate | 100% | 88% | |||||
| Severe | 100% | ||||||
| Decision Trees [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | 100% | ||||
| Moderate | 80% | ||||||
| Severe | |||||||
| Naive Bayes [ | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% | 100% | |||
| Moderate | 100% | 90% | |||||
| Severe | 100% | 80% | |||||
| SVM [ | Healthy/Mild | 80% | 100% | ||||
| Moderate | 75% | ||||||
| Severe | 75% | 75% | 75% | ||||
| KNN [ | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% | 100% | |||
| Moderate | 80% | ||||||
| Severe | 75% | ||||||
| Proposed System | Healthy/Mild | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|
| |
| Moderate | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| Severe | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
Figure 6An illustrative color map example of Gibbs energies for (a) healthy/mild, (b) moderate, and (c) severe; tuned using healthy/mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 lesions; applied to the lung (th rows), hybrid (th rows), and lesion (th rows) approaches.
Figure 7Estimated error average of CDF percentiles for three grades when tuning MGRF parameters using (a) healthy/mild, (b) moderate, or (c) severe lesion infection, applied to lung (upper row), hybrid (middle row), and lesion (lower row) approaches.