| Literature DB >> 35471179 |
Josué Ruano1, John Arcila2, David Romo-Bucheli3, Carlos Vargas4, Jefferson Rodríguez5, Óscar Mendoza6, Miguel Plazas7, Lola Bautista8, Jorge Villamizar9, Gabriel Pedraza10, Alejandra Moreno11, Diana Valenzuela12, Lina Vázquez13, Carolina Valenzuela-Santos14, Paul Camacho15, Daniel Mantilla16, Fabio Martínez Carrillo17.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a significant public health problem worldwide. In this context, CT-scan automatic analysis has emerged as a COVID-19 complementary diagnosis tool allowing for radiological finding characterization, patient categorization, and disease follow-up. However, this analysis depends on the radiologist's expertise, which may result in subjective evaluations.Entities:
Keywords: Coronavirus infections/diagnosis; tomography; X-ray computed; deep learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35471179 PMCID: PMC9071798 DOI: 10.7705/biomedica.5927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedica ISSN: 0120-4157 Impact factor: 1.173
Demographic data and comorbidities distribution of patients included in the FOSCAL dataset
| Demographic characteristics | Classes | |
|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | Non-COVID-19 | |
| Number of patients | 175 | 180 |
| Number of male/female/unknown | 109/66/0 | 68/96/16 |
| Age [range] (mean ± std) | [6−92] 60.59±18.68) | [6−93] (55.00±17.58) |
| Comorbidities distribution | 46% hypertension | 59% no comorbidities |
| 28% no comorbidities | 28% cancer | |
| 15% cardiovascular disease | 7% hypertension | |
| 11% cancer | 6% others | |
Figure 1Pipeline of the proposed approach. (a) First, a set of radiological studies were collected from different databases with expert annotations. (b) Then, a deep learning based strategy was trained to detect COVID-19 cases in three steps: b.1. Different convolutional neural network architectures were tested to characterize the radiological studies; b.2. subsequently, the extracted features were flattened to be used as input for the two proposed classification stages; b.3. an end-to-end approach with fully-connected layer classifier, and (b.4) an embedding approach with machine learning classifiers. (c) At the testing stage, new radiological studies were labeled as with or without COVID-19 using the trained models.
Metrics used to evaluate the proposed approach. The metrics are based on the quantification of instances: True positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN).
| Metric | Formula |
|---|---|
| Accuracy |
|
| Precision |
|
| Sensitivity |
|
| F1 score |
|
SARS-CoV-2 CT Scan dataset average results for the baseline by Silva, et al. (19), end-to-end, and embedding classification approaches. The highest values for each metric across all experiments are highlighted in bold.
| Method | Configuration | Acc (%) | Pre (%) | Sens (%) | F1 (%) | AUC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silva, | EfficientNetB0 | 86.6 ± 10.1 | 79.7 ± 20.9 | 94.8 ± 4.50 | - | - |
| End-to-end | VGG16 | 92.33 ± 4.81 | 89.70 ± 6.74 | 88.96 ± 6.57 | 89.89 ± 6.38 | 98.20 |
| ResNet-152 | 86.05 ± 1.43 | 85.52 ± 1.33 | 76.02 ± 4.01 | 79.01 ± 3.37 | 88.51 | |
| Embedding | ResNet-152 + RF | 90.70 ± 2.80 | 91.38 ± 2.83 | 95.62 ± 2.85 | 93.42 ± 2.38 | 88.82 |
| ResNet-152 + SVM | 91.40 ± 2.48 | 95.77 ± 2.83 | 91.58 ± 2.41 | 93.63 ± 2.80 | 91.28 |
Figure 2SARS-CoV-2 dataset average results of the embedding with random forest and support vector machine
Figure 3FOSCAL dataset average results of the embedding with random forest and support vector machine
FOSCAL dataset average results for the end-to-end and embedding classification approache. The highest values for each metric across all experiments are highlighted in bold.
| Method | Configuration | Acc (%) | Pre (%) | Sens (%) | F1 (%) | AUC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| End-to-end | VGG16 | |||||
| ResNet-152 | 95.57 ± 5.83 | 95.74 ± 5.53 | 95.79 ± 5.52 | 95.57 ± 5.82 | 98.87 | |
| InceptionV3 | 94.11 ± 4.45 | 94.10 ± 4.46 | 94.08 ± 4.46 | 94.07 ± 4.50 | 98.07 | |
| Embedding | ResNet-152 + RF | 95.11 ± 2.06 | 94.81 ± 3.56 | 95.42 ± 2.96 | 94.67 ± 2.05 | 96.06 |
| ResNet-152 + SVM | 96.00 ± 2.56 | 94.74 ± 2.51 | 96.00 ± 2.12 | 96.46 ± 1.84 | 94.15 |