| Literature DB >> 35885865 |
Mahmoud Ragab1,2,3, Hani Choudhry2,4, Amer H Asseri2,4, Sami Saeed Binyamin5, Mohammed W Al-Rabia6,7.
Abstract
Effective screening provides efficient and quick diagnoses of COVID-19 and could alleviate related problems in the health care system. A prediction model that combines multiple features to assess contamination risks was established in the hope of supporting healthcare workers worldwide in triaging patients, particularly in situations with limited health care resources. Furthermore, a lack of diagnosis kits and asymptomatic cases can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses, exposing visitors, medical staff, and patients to 2019-nCoV contamination. Non-clinical techniques including data mining, expert systems, machine learning, and other artificial intelligence technologies have a crucial role to play in containment and diagnosis in the COVID-19 outbreak. This study developed Enhanced Gravitational Search Optimization with a Hybrid Deep Learning Model (EGSO-HDLM) for COVID-19 diagnoses using epidemiology data. The major aim of designing the EGSO-HDLM model was the identification and classification of COVID-19 using epidemiology data. In order to examine the epidemiology data, the EGSO-HDLM model employed a hybrid convolutional neural network with a gated recurrent unit based fusion (HCNN-GRUF) model. In addition, the hyperparameter optimization of the HCNN-GRUF model was improved by the use of the EGSO algorithm, which was derived by including the concepts of cat map and the traditional GSO algorithm. The design of the EGSO algorithm helps in reducing the ergodic problem, avoiding premature convergence, and enhancing algorithm efficiency. To demonstrate the better performance of the EGSO-HDLM model, experimental validation on a benchmark dataset was performed. The simulation results ensured the enhanced performance of the EGSO-HDLM model over recent approaches.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; disease detection; epidemiology data; fusion model; health promotion; hybrid deep learning; parameter optimization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885865 PMCID: PMC9317045 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071339
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Overall process of EGSO-HDLM technique.
Figure 2Structure of GRU Model.
Figure 3Confusion matrices of EGSO-HDLM algorithm (a) 70% of TR; (b) 30% of TS; (c) 80% of TR; (d) 20% of TS data.
Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM technique with various measures for 70% of TR and 30% of TS data.
| Class Labels | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Phase (70%) | |||||
| Positive | 97.07 | 99.23 | 94.90 | 99.26 | 97.01 |
| Negative | 97.07 | 95.09 | 99.26 | 94.90 | 97.13 |
| Average | 97.07 | 97.16 | 97.08 | 97.08 | 97.07 |
| Testing Phase (30%) | |||||
| Positive | 97.37 | 99.10 | 95.57 | 99.14 | 97.30 |
| Negative | 97.37 | 95.77 | 99.14 | 95.57 | 97.43 |
| Average | 97.37 | 97.44 | 97.36 | 97.36 | 97.37 |
Figure 4Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM approach under 70% of TR data.
Figure 5Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM approach under 30% of TS data.
Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM technique with various measures for 80% of TR and 20% of TS data.
| Class Labels | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Phase (80%) | |||||
| Positive | 97.26 | 97.34 | 97.17 | 97.35 | 97.26 |
| Negative | 97.26 | 97.18 | 97.35 | 97.17 | 97.27 |
| Average | 97.26 | 97.26 | 97.26 | 97.26 | 97.26 |
| Testing Phase (20%) | |||||
| Positive | 97.55 | 97.60 | 97.50 | 97.60 | 97.55 |
| Negative | 97.55 | 97.50 | 97.60 | 97.50 | 97.55 |
| Average | 97.55 | 97.55 | 97.55 | 97.55 | 97.55 |
Figure 6Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM approach under 80% of TR data.
Figure 7Result analysis of EGSO-HDLM approach under 20% of TS data.
Figure 8TA and VA analysis of EGSO-HDLM methodology.
Figure 9TL and VL analysis of EGSO-HDLM methodology.
Figure 10Precision-recall curve analysis of EGSO-HDLM methodology.
Figure 11ROC curve analysis of EGSO-HDLM methodology.
Comparative analysis of EGSO-HDLM technique with existing approaches [14].
| Methods | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|
| EGSO-HDLM | 97.55 | 97.55 | 97.55 |
| Extreme Learning Machine | 91.46 | 91.18 | 92.59 |
| Multilayer Perceptron | 94.27 | 94.58 | 93.66 |
| SGD Model | 90.01 | 90.08 | 92.37 |
| LSTM Model | 94.64 | 93.18 | 94.96 |
| ACO Model | 90.67 | 94.40 | 93.36 |
Figure 12analysis of EGSO-HDLM algorithm with existing methodologies.
Figure 13analysis of EGSO-HDLM algorithm with existing methodologies.
Figure 14analysis of EGSO-HDLM algorithm with existing methodologies.