| Literature DB >> 35328271 |
Grace Ugochi Nneji1, Jingye Cai1, Happy Nkanta Monday2, Md Altab Hossin3, Saifun Nahar4, Goodness Temofe Mgbejime2, Jianhua Deng1.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease has rapidly spread globally since early January of 2020. With millions of deaths, it is essential for an automated system to be utilized to aid in the clinical diagnosis and reduce time consumption for image analysis. This article presents a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based deep learning application for precisely regaining high-resolution (HR) CXR images from low-resolution (LR) CXR correspondents for COVID-19 identification. Respectively, using the building blocks of GAN, we introduce a modified enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial network plus (MESRGAN+) to implement a connected nonlinear mapping collected from noise-contaminated low-resolution input images to produce deblurred and denoised HR images. As opposed to the latest trends of network complexity and computational costs, we incorporate an enhanced VGG19 fine-tuned twin network with the wavelet pooling strategy in order to extract distinct features for COVID-19 identification. We demonstrate our proposed model on a publicly available dataset of 11,920 samples of chest X-ray images, with 2980 cases of COVID-19 CXR, healthy, viral and bacterial cases. Our proposed model performs efficiently both on the binary and four-class classification. The proposed method achieves accuracy of 98.8%, precision of 98.6%, sensitivity of 97.5%, specificity of 98.9%, an F1 score of 97.8% and ROC AUC of 98.8% for the multi-class task, while, for the binary class, the model achieves accuracy of 99.7%, precision of 98.9%, sensitivity of 98.7%, specificity of 99.3%, an F1 score of 98.2% and ROC AUC of 99.7%. Our method obtains state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, according to the experimental results, which is helpful for COVID-19 screening. This new conceptual framework is proposed to play an influential role in addressing the issues facing COVID-19 examination and other diseases.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Siamese network; adversarial learning; chest X-ray images; contrastive loss; deep learning; super-resolution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328271 PMCID: PMC8947640 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Distribution of CXR image dataset and their descriptions, showing different categories of pneumonia, healthy and COVID-19 image scans, as well as the number of selected images per category.
| Classes | Data Count per Class | Selected No. of Data per Class | Train Set | Val Set | Test Set |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | 3029 | 2980 | 1192 | 1192 | 596 |
| COVID-19 | 3616 | 2980 | 1192 | 1192 | 596 |
| Healthy | 8851 | 2980 | 1192 | 1192 | 596 |
| Virus | 2983 | 2980 | 1192 | 1192 | 596 |
| Total | 11,920 | 4768 | 4768 | 2384 |
Figure 1Scaling of images at different resolutions to a fixed resolution using image scaling adaptive module.
Figure 2Our proposed modified ESRGAN+ and Siamese convolutional neural network.
Figure 3We adopted the fundamental structural configuration of ESRGAN+, where feature extraction and most computation is performed on the LR image feature. We redesigned 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 4Comparison results of our proposed MESRGAN+ and other selected SOTA models with the same dataset. The PI value is reported on the left and the PSNR is reported on the right.
Comparison of the structural configuration of SRGAN, ESRGAN, ESRGAN+ and our proposed MESRGAN+, including their reported peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) and PI value, using the same CXR 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 | 19.71 dB | 19.23 dB | 18.65 dB | 18.12 dB |
| PI | 2.56 | 2.37 | 2.21 | 2.09 |
Performance evaluation metrics for the proposed model.
| Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PRE (%) | F1 Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-entropy binary class | 96.1 | 96.7 | 98.0 | 97.4 | 97.3 | 96.3 |
| Cross-entropy multi-class | 95.4 | 96.8 | 97.2 | 97.0 | 96.5 | 96.3 |
| Contrastive loss binary class | 99.7 | 98.7 | 99.3 | 99.7 | 98.9 | 98.2 |
| Contrastive loss multi-class | 98.8 | 97.5 | 98.9 | 98.8 | 98.6 | 97.6 |
Figure 5Contrastive loss function report for binary class and multi-class.
Figure 6Cross-entropy loss function report for binary class and multi-class.
Figure 7Accuracy report for our proposed model and selected pre-trained models for binary class and multi-class.
Figure 8AUC report for our proposed model and selected pre-trained models for binary class and multi-class.
Figure 9Sensitivity report for our proposed model and selected pre-trained models for binary class and multi-class.
Figure 10Our proposed MESRGAN+ and Siamese Capsule Network (Siamese-CapsNet).
Classification performance of our proposed model based on binary and multiple category tasks.
| Performance Metrics | Proposed Model for Binary Class | Proposed Model for Multi-Class |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | 99.7 | 98.8 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 98.7 | 97.5 |
| Specificity (%) | 99.3 | 98.9 |
| AUC (%) | 99.7 | 98.8 |
| Precision (%) | 98.9 | 98.6 |
| F1 score (%) | 98.2 | 97.8 |
| Time (min) | 36.3 | 39.8 |
Comparison of our proposed model with other state-of-the-art COVID-19 screening methods.
| SOTA Research Report | Methodology | Performance Evaluation (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. [ | 2D UNet ++ | ACC | 95.2 |
| SEN | 100.0 | ||
| SPE | 93.6 | ||
| Jin et al. [ | 2D UNet ++ and 2D CNN | SEN | 97.4 |
| SPE | 92.2 | ||
| Jin et al. [ | 2D CNN | SEN | 94.1 |
| SPE | 95.5 | ||
| Li et al. [ | 2D ResNet-50 | SEN | 90.0 |
| SPE | 96.0 | ||
| Shi et al. [ | Random forest-based CNN | ACC | 87.9 |
| SEN | 83.3 | ||
| SPE | 90.7 | ||
| Song et al. [ | 2D ResNet-50 | SEN | 86.0 |
| Wang et al. [ | 2D CNN | ACC | 82.9 |
| Wang et al. [ | 3D ResNet and attention | ACC | 93.3 |
| SEN | 87.6 | ||
| SPE | 95.5 | ||
| Xu et al. [ | 2D CNN | ACC | 86.7 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2D UNet and 2D CNN | SEN | 90.7 |
| SPE | 90.7 | ||
| Ours | MESRGAN+ with Siamese VGGNet for multi-class | ACC | 98.8 |
| SEN | 97.5 | ||
| SPE | 98.9 | ||
| AUC | 98.8 | ||
| PRE | 98.6 | ||
| F1 score | 97.8 | ||
| Ours | MESRGAN+ with Siamese VGGNet for multi-class | ACC | 99.7 |
| SEN | 98.7 | ||
| SPE | 99.3 | ||
| AUC | 99.7 | ||
| PRE | 98.9 | ||
| F1 score | 98.2 | ||
Comparison of our proposed model with famous pre-trained feature extraction models for multi-class.
| Feature Learning Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PRE (%) | F1 Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 86.3 | 86.5 | 87.7 | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.9 |
| VGG16 | 88.7 | 89.5 | 88.0 | 89.8 | 87.9 | 89.9 |
| Xception | 88.9 | 88.6 | 88.6 | 89.5 | 88.1 | 89.8 |
| MobileNet | 91.2 | 90.8 | 89.2 | 90.6 | 89.7 | 90.5 |
| DenseNet | 92.5 | 91.7 | 92.2 | 91.2 | 91.8 | 90.8 |
| InceptionV3 | 91.9 | 91.5 | 92.1 | 91.3 | 92.1 | 91.8 |
| ResNet50 | 92.3 | 92.1 | 92.5 | 92.7 | 92.5 | 92.1 |
| Ours | 98.8 | 97.5 | 98.9 | 98.8 | 98.6 | 97.8 |
Comparison of our proposed model with famous pre-trained feature extraction models for binary class using the dataset.
| Feature Learning Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PRE (%) | F1 Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 88.9 | 89.3 | 89.9 | 89.1 | 88.2 | 89.5 |
| VGG16 | 90.2 | 90.4 | 90.3 | 90.2 | 89.9 | 90.1 |
| Xception | 89.5 | 89.6 | 90.6 | 90.5 | 88.6 | 90.8 |
| MobileNet | 90.7 | 90.9 | 91.2 | 91.6 | 89.8 | 91.7 |
| DenseNet | 91.1 | 91.7 | 93.7 | 90.0 | 90.8 | 91.2 |
| InceptionV3 | 92.6 | 93.0 | 93.2 | 91.5 | 92.2 | 92.1 |
| ResNet50 | 94.8 | 94.8 | 94.1 | 93.0 | 93.6 | 93.8 |
| Ours | 99.7 | 98.7 | 99.3 | 99.7 | 98.9 | 98.2 |
Comparison of our proposed model with famous pre-trained feature extraction models for multi-class using the dataset.
| COVID-19 Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PRE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-Net [ | 90.5 | 89.2 | 91.1 | 89.9 | 90.0 |
| DRE-Net [ | 86.1 | 86.7 | 85.9 | 86.0 | 85.8 |
| DeCoVNet [ | 93.4 | 92.8 | 93.2 | 92.1 | 91.5 |
| Cov-Net [ | 96.7 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.5 |
| Ours | 98.8 | 97.5 | 98.9 | 98.8 | 98.6 |
Comparison of our proposed model with some COVID-19 models for binary class using the dataset.
| COVID-19 Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | AUC (%) | PRE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-Net [ | 92.7 | 91.8 | 92.8 | 92.2 | 92.5 |
| DRE-Net [ | 88.3 | 87.5 | 88.2 | 89.4 | 88.8 |
| DeCoVNet [ | 95.6 | 95.1 | 95.8 | 95.0 | 95.4 |
| Cov-Net [ | 97.3 | 97.2 | 96.9 | 96.1 | 97.5 |
| Ours | 99.7 | 98.7 | 99.3 | 99.7 | 98.9 |
Figure 11Performance accuracy in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models and selected state-of-the-art COVID-19 models for binary class.
Figure 12Performance accuracy in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models and selected state-of-the-art COVID-19 models for multi-class.
Figure 13Performance ROC in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models and selected state-of-the-art COVID-19 models for binary class.
Figure 14Performance ROC in comparison with our proposed model and other pre-trained models and selected state-of-the-art COVID-19 models for multi-class.