| Literature DB >> 35342787 |
Md Belal Hossain1, S M Hasan Sazzad Iqbal1, Md Monirul Islam2, Md Nasim Akhtar3, Iqbal H Sarker4.
Abstract
COVID-19 cases are putting pressure on healthcare systems all around the world. Due to the lack of available testing kits, it is impractical for screening every patient with a respiratory ailment using traditional methods (RT-PCR). In addition, the tests have a high turn-around time and low sensitivity. Detecting suspected COVID-19 infections from the chest X-ray might help isolate high-risk people before the RT-PCR test. Most healthcare systems already have X-ray equipment, and because most current X-ray systems have already been computerized, there is no need to transfer the samples. The use of a chest X-ray to prioritize the selection of patients for subsequent RT-PCR testing is the motivation of this work. Transfer learning (TL) with fine-tuning on deep convolutional neural network-based ResNet50 model has been proposed in this work to classify COVID-19 patients from the COVID-19 Radiography Database. Ten distinct pre-trained weights, trained on varieties of large-scale datasets using various approaches such as supervised learning, self-supervised learning, and others, have been utilized in this work. Our proposed i N a t 2021 _ M i n i _ S w A V _ 1 k model, pre-trained on the iNat2021 Mini dataset using the SwAV algorithm, outperforms the other ResNet50 TL models. For COVID instances in the two-class (Covid and Normal) classification, our work achieved 99.17% validation accuracy, 99.95% train accuracy, 99.31% precision, 99.03% sensitivity, and 99.17% F1-score. Some domain-adapted ( I m a g e N e t _ C h e s t X - r a y 14 ) and in-domain (ChexPert, ChestX-ray14) models looked promising in medical image classification by scoring significantly higher than other models.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Deep learning; ResNet50; Transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35342787 PMCID: PMC8933872 DOI: 10.1016/j.imu.2022.100916
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inform Med Unlocked ISSN: 2352-9148
Fig. 1A block diagram of the proposed methodology.
COVID-19 radiography database.
| Covid | Lung opacity | Viral pneumonia | Normal | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3616 | 6012 | 1345 | 10 192 | 21 165 |
Dataset splitting of Covid and Normal images into train and test set.
| Set | Covid | Normal | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 2892 | 2917 | 5809 |
| Test | 723 | 730 | 1453 |
| Total | 3615 | 3647 | 7262 |
Fig. 2Example of Covid CXR images of COVID-19 Radiography Database.
Fig. 3Example of Normal CXR images of COVID-19 Radiography Database.
Fig. 4Fine tuned ResNet50 TL architecture.
Architecture for proposed fine-tuned ResNet50 TL. Building blocks are shown in brackets, with the numbers of blocks stacked. Downsampling is performed by conv3_1, conv4_1, and conv5_1 with a stride of 2.
| Layer name | Output size | Layer |
|---|---|---|
| conv1 | 112 × 112 | 7 × 7, 64, stride 2 |
| conv2_x | 56 × 56 | 3 × 3 max pool, stride 2 |
| [1 × 1, 64 | ||
| conv3_x | 28 × 28 | [1 × 1, 128 |
| conv4_x | [ | |
| conv5_x | 7 × 7 | [1 × 1, 512 |
| fc1 | 1 × 1 | Average pool |
| in_features | ||
| fc2 | 1 × 1 | Dropout 0.5 |
| in_features | ||
| fc3 | 1 × 1 | relu, dropout 0.5 |
| in_features | ||
Hyperparameters of ResNet50 TL model.
| Parameters | Parameters value |
|---|---|
| Batch size | 32 |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Learning rate | 0.001 |
| Betas | (0.9, 0.999) |
| Eps | 1e−08 |
| Weight decay | 0 |
| Criterion | Cross Eentropy Loss |
Fig. 5Train and validation loss of different ResNet50 TL models.
Fig. 6Train and validation accuracy of different ResNet50 TL models.
Fig. 7Train and validation losses and accuracies of all ResNet50 TL models.
Fig. 8Confusion Matrix of ResNet50 TL models.
Various scores calculated in test dataset for different ResNet50 TL model where Pre Precision, Re Recall, F1 F1-score, Sup Support, Acc Accuracy, INCXR14 , INCxP , iNSup , iNSupFS , iNMSwAV .
| Model | Class | Pre | Re | F1 | Sup | Acc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChestX-ray14 | Covid | 0.9791 | 0.9737 | 0.9764 | 723 | 0.9766 |
| Normal | 0.9741 | 0.9795 | 0.9768 | 730 | ||
| ChexPert | Covid | 0.9861 | 0.9834 | 0.9848 | 723 | 0.9849 |
| Normal | 0.9836 | 0.9863 | 0.9850 | 730 | ||
| ImageNet | Covid | 0.8394 | 0.7953 | 0.8168 | 723 | 0.8224 |
| Normal | 0.8073 | 0.8493 | 0.8278 | 730 | ||
| INCXR14 | Covid | 0.9902 | 0.9737 | 0.9819 | 723 | 0.9821 |
| Normal | 0.9744 | 0.9904 | 0.9823 | 730 | ||
| INCxP | Covid | 0.9650 | 0.9544 | 0.9597 | 723 | 0.9601 |
| Normal | 0.9553 | 0.9658 | 0.9605 | 730 | ||
| iNSup | Covid | 0.9635 | 0.9488 | 0.9561 | 723 | 0.9566 |
| Normal | 0.9501 | 0.9644 | 0.9572 | 730 | ||
| iNSupFS | Covid | 0.9696 | 0.9710 | 0.9703 | 723 | 0.9704 |
| Normal | 0.9712 | 0.9699 | 0.9705 | 730 | ||
| iNMSwAV | Covid | 0.9931 | 0.9903 | 0.9917 | 723 | 0.9917 |
| Normal | 0.9904 | 0.9932 | 0.9918 | 730 | ||
| Covid | 0.9411 | 0.9281 | 0.9345 | 723 | 0.9353 | |
| Normal | 0.9297 | 0.9425 | 0.9361 | 730 | ||
| Covid | 0.7974 | 0.8382 | 0.8173 | 723 | 0.8135 | |
| Normal | 0.8312 | 0.7891 | 0.8096 | 730 |
Accuracy summary of different ResNet50 TL models during 50 epochs of training where Acmx Maximum Accuracy, Acmn Minimum Accuracy, Avacy Average Accuracy, E epoch, INCXR14 , INCxP , iNSup , iNSupFS , iNMSwAV .
| Model | Set | Acmx | Acmx | Acmn | Acmn | Avacy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChestX-ray14 | Train | 0.9764 | 47 | 0.8988 | 1 | 0.9688 |
| Test | 0.9780 | 36 | 0.9456 | 3 | 0.9696 | |
| ChexPert | Train | 0.9886 | 30 | 0.9107 | 1 | 0.9810 |
| Test | 0.9862 | 41 | 0.5038 | 1 | 0.9701 | |
| ImageNet | Train | 0.8024 | 44 | 0.6729 | 1 | 0.7925 |
| Test | 0.8259 | 31 | 0.7688 | 1 | 0.8123 | |
| INCXR14 | Train | 0.9904 | 34 | 0.9206 | 1 | 0.9823 |
| Test | 0.9828 | 46 | 0.5561 | 2 | 0.9644 | |
| INCxP | Train | 0.9583 | 18 | 0.8879 | 1 | 0.9519 |
| Test | 0.9621 | 43 | 0.6965 | 1 | 0.9514 | |
| iNSup | Train | 0.9494 | 42 | 0.8666 | 1 | 0.9419 |
| Test | 0.9566 | 24 | 0.7770 | 1 | 0.9467 | |
| iNSupFS | Train | 0.9594 | 31 | 0.8816 | 1 | 0.9506 |
| Test | 0.9711 | 42 | 0.9284 | 6 | 0.9611 | |
| iNMSwAV | Train | 39 | 0.9363 | 1 | 0.9951 | |
| Test | 23 | 0.9140 | 1 | 0.9892 | ||
| Train | 0.9379 | 44 | 0.8179 | 1 | 0.9289 | |
| Test | 0.9353 | 45 | 0.8665 | 29 | 0.9256 | |
| Train | 0.8027 | 42 | 0.7447 | 1 | 0.7917 | |
| Test | 0.8135 | 47 | 0.5045 | 1 | 0.7961 |
Comparison of the proposed model using similar existing studies.
| SN | Reference | Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | COVIDX-Net | 90 | |
| 02 | MADE-based CNN | 94.65 | |
| 03 | VGG16 | 80 | |
| 04 | Deep CNN | 93 | |
| 05 | UNet3D Deep Network | 90.80 | |
| 06 | ResNet | 86.70 | |
| 07 | DeTraC Deep CNN | 93.1 | |
| 08 | VGG16 | 97.67 | |
| 09 | Proposed | 99.17 |