| Literature DB >> 35368940 |
Mahmoud Ragab1,2,3, Samah Alshehri4, Nabil A Alhakamy5,6,7, Wafaa Alsaggaf1, Hani A Alhadrami8,9,10, Jaber Alyami11,12.
Abstract
Early and accurate detection of COVID-19 is an essential process to curb the spread of this deadly disease and its mortality rate. Chest radiology scan is a significant tool for early management and diagnosis of COVID-19 since the virus targets the respiratory system. Chest X-ray (CXR) images are highly useful in the effective detection of COVID-19, thanks to its availability, cost-effective means, and rapid outcomes. In addition, Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques such as deep learning (DL) models play a significant role in designing automated diagnostic processes using CXR images. With this motivation, the current study presents a new Quantum Seagull Optimization Algorithm with DL-based COVID-19 diagnosis model, named QSGOA-DL technique. The proposed QSGOA-DL technique intends to detect and classify COVID-19 with the help of CXR images. In this regard, the QSGOA-DL technique involves the design of EfficientNet-B4 as a feature extractor, whereas hyperparameter optimization is carried out with the help of QSGOA technique. Moreover, the classification process is performed by a multilayer extreme learning machine (MELM) model. The novelty of the study lies in the designing of QSGOA for hyperparameter optimization of the EfficientNet-B4 model. An extensive series of simulations was carried out on the benchmark test CXR dataset, and the results were assessed under different aspects. The simulation results demonstrate the promising performance of the proposed QSGOA-DL technique compared to recent approaches.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35368940 PMCID: PMC8968387 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6074538
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Overall process of the QSGOA-DL model.
Figure 2Sample images.
Figure 3Confusion matrix analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model.
Results of the analysis of QSGOA-DL model against different training/testing datasets.
| Measures | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F-score | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training/testing (80 : 20) | 0.9984 | 0.9981 | 0.9984 | 0.9983 | 0.9983 | 0.9966 |
| Training/testing (70 : 30) | 0.9972 | 0.9969 | 0.9972 | 0.9971 | 0.9971 | 0.9941 |
| Training/testing (60 : 40) | 0.9963 | 0.9953 | 0.9963 | 0.9958 | 0.9958 | 0.9916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Accuracy graph analysis of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (80 : 20).
Figure 5Loss graph analysis of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (80 : 20).
Figure 6Accuracy analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (70 : 30).
Figure 7Loss analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (70 : 30).
Figure 8Accuracy graph analysis of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (60 : 40).
Figure 9Loss graph analysis of the QSGOA-DL model on training/testing (60 : 40).
Comparative analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model with different measures.
| Methods | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F-score | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBHL | 98.00 | 99.00 | 98.00 | 98.53 | 98.00 | 97.00 |
| DHL-2 | 97.00 | 99.00 | 97.00 | 98.29 | 98.00 | 97.00 |
| DHL-1 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 98.14 | 98.00 | 96.00 |
| ResNet-2 | 97.00 | 97.00 | 97.00 | 97.21 | 97.00 | 94.00 |
| TL-ResNet-2 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 98.14 | 98.00 | 96.00 |
| ResNet-1 | 97.00 | 97.00 | 97.00 | 97.21 | 97.00 | 94.00 |
| TL-RENet-1 | 99.00 | 97.00 | 99.00 | 98.06 | 98.00 | 96.00 |
| QSGOA-DL | 99.80 | 99.80 | 99.80 | 99.83 | 99.80 | 99.70 |
Figure 10Comparative analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model under different measures.
Figure 11Accuracy analysis results of the QSGOA-DL model against existing approaches.