| Literature DB >> 35722028 |
Mukesh Soni1, Ajay Kumar Singh2, K Suresh Babu3, Sumit Kumar4, Akhilesh Kumar5, Shweta Singh6.
Abstract
Given the novel corona virus discovered in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, due to the high false-negative rate of RT-PCR and the time-consuming to obtain the results, research has proved that computed tomography (CT) has become an auxiliary One of the essential means of diagnosis and treatment of new corona virus pneumonia. Since few COVID-19 CT datasets are currently available, it is proposed to use conditional generative adversarial networks to enhance data to obtain CT datasets with more samples to reduce the risk of over fitting. In addition, a BIN residual block-based method is proposed. The improved U-Net network is used for image segmentation and then combined with multi-layer perception for classification prediction. By comparing with network models such as AlexNet and GoogleNet, it is concluded that the proposed BUF-Net network model has the best performance, reaching an accuracy rate of 93%. Using Grad-CAM technology to visualize the system's output can more intuitively illustrate the critical role of CT images in diagnosing COVID-19. Applying deep learning using the proposed techniques suggested by the above study in medical imaging can help radiologists achieve more effective diagnoses that is the main objective of the research. On the basis of the foregoing, this study proposes to employ CGAN technology to augment the restricted data set, integrate the residual block into the U-Net network, and combine multi-layer perception in order to construct new network architecture for COVID-19 detection using CT images. -19. Given the scarcity of COVID-19 CT datasets, it is proposed that conditional generative adversarial networks be used to augment data in order to obtain CT datasets with more samples and therefore lower the danger of overfitting.Entities:
Keywords: CT image; Conditional generative adversarial network; Deep learning; Novel corona virus; U-net
Year: 2022 PMID: 35722028 PMCID: PMC9188200 DOI: 10.1016/j.smhl.2022.100296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Smart Health (Amst) ISSN: 2352-6483
Global epidemic data as of June 8, 2021
| Area | The cumulative number of confirmed cases | Cumulative death toll | Case fatality rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | 11,4707 | 5 132 | 4.47 |
| America | 33,377,632 | 597,946 | 1.79 |
| India | 28,909,975 | 349,186 | 1.2 |
| Brazil | 16,947,062 | 473,495 | 2.79 |
| Russia | 5,135,866 | 124,117 | 2.41 |
| U.K | 4,522,476 | 152,068 | 3.36 |
| Italy | 4,232,428 | 126,523 | 2.98 |
| Germany | 3,717,890 | 89,825 | 2.41 |
Dataset distribution of CT images.
| Dataset | Train set | Validation set | Test set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | NonCOVID-19 | COVID-19 | NonCOVID-19 | COVID-19 | NonCOVID-19 | |
| COVID19 | 244 | 278 | 71 | 80 | 34 | 39 |
| COVID19+ | 1466 | 1667 | 419 | 476 | 209 | 239 |
Fig. 1Example of CT image dataset.
Fig. 2Example of the data enhancement effect.
Fig. 3Generative adversarial network structures.
Fig. 4Conditional generative adversarial network structures.
Conditional generative adversarial network the system used in this article.
| Generator Network | Discriminator Network |
|---|---|
| Enter | Enter |
| Transpose Convolution 1 | Convolution 1 |
| Batch Normalization 1 | Leaky ReLU1 |
| ReLU1 | Convolution 2 |
| Batch Normalization 2 | Batch Normalization 1 |
| Transpose Convolution 2 | Leaky ReLU2 |
| ReLU2 | Convolution 3 |
| Transpose Convolution 3 | Batch Normalization 2 |
| Batch Normalization 3 | Leaky ReLU3 |
| ReLU3 | Convolution 4 |
| Transpose Convolution 4 | Batch Normalization 3 |
| ReLU4 | Leaky ReLU4 |
| Transpose Convolution 5 | Convolution 5 |
| Batch Normalization 4 | Batch Normalization 4 |
| Batch Normalization 5 | Leaky ReLU5 |
| ReLU5 | Convolution 6 |
| Transpose Convolution 6 | |
| Tanh |
Fig. 5U-Net network structures.
Fig. 6Residual block structure.
Fig. 7Comparison of residual block structure.
Comparison of BUF-Net algorithm with other algorithms.
| Paper | Model | Sen | Acc | Spe | Pre |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [28] | Attention | 86.9 | 87.5 | 90.1 | |
| ResNet34+Dual | |||||
| Sampling | |||||
| [29] | AFS-DF | 93.1 | 91.7 | 89.9 | |
| [30] | DarkCovidNet | 85.3 | 87 | 89.9 | |
| [31] | COVID-Net | 91 | 93.3 | 98.9 | |
| [32] | GLSZM-LSTM | 97.5 | 98.7 | 99.6 | 99.6 |
| ours | BUF-Net | 87.6 | 93.1 | 77.3 | 97.1 |
Confusion matrix.
| Covid 19 | Non Covid 19 | Covid 19 | Non Covid 19 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 293 | 56 | 846%. | 1834 | 260 | 87.6% | ||
| 39.3% | 7.5% | 6% | 41% | 5.8% | 12.4% | ||
| 64 | 333 | 83.9% | 54 | 2328 | 97.7% | ||
| 8.6% | 46.3% | 16.1% | 1.2% | 52% | 2.3% | ||
| 82.1% | 85.6% | 83.9% | 97.1% | 90% | 93% | ||
| 17.9% | 14.3% | 16.1% | 2.9% | 10% | 7% | ||
Performance comparison.
| Serial | AlexNet | VGGNet16 | GoogleNet | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.65 | 0.85 |
| Precision | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| F1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.85 |
| score | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.55 | 0.8 |
| Accuracy | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.75 |
| Specificity | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.8 |
Fig. 8Performance comparison.
Fig. 9ROC curve and model training curve of BUF-Net.
Fig. 10Grad-CAM visualization results.