| Literature DB >> 35990557 |
Vishwajeet Dwivedy1, Harsh Deep Shukla1, Pradeep Kumar Roy1.
Abstract
The COVID-19 disease, initially known as SARS-CoV-2, was first reported in early December 2019 and has caused immense damage to humans globally. The most widely used clinical screening method for COVID-19 is Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). RT-PCR uses respiratory samples for testing, because of which, this manual technique becomes complicated, laborious and time-consuming. Even though it has a low sensitivity, it carries a considerable risk for the testing medical staff. Hence, there is a need for an automated diagnosis system that can provide quick and efficient diagnosis results. This research proposed a multi-scale lightweight CNN (LMNet) architecture for COVID-19 detection. The proposed model is computationally less expensive than previously available models and requires less memory space. The performance of the proposed LMNet model ensemble with DenseNet169 and MobileNetV2 is higher than the other state-of-the-art models. The ensemble model can be integrated at the backend of the smart devices; hence it is useful for the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) environment.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Classification; Convolutional neural network; Deep learning; Ensemble learning; Transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990557 PMCID: PMC9376345 DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Electr Eng ISSN: 0045-7906 Impact factor: 4.152
Fig. 1Overview of the proposed Lightweight Multi-scale CNN (LMNet) model.
Description of the dataset used to train and test the proposed LMNet model.
| Classes | Training data | Test data | Total count (Per Class) |
|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | 460 | 116 | 576 |
| Normal | 1260 | 317 | 1577 |
| Pneumonia | 3418 | 855 | 4273 |
| Total | 5138 | 1288 | 6426 |
Fig. 2Outcomes of the data augmentation process on image.
Comparison of hyperparameters between proposed and existing transfer learning framework.
| Hyperparameter | Existing transfer learning models | Proposed model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG19 | InceptionV3 | DenseNet169 | ResNet50V2 | Xception | MobileNetV2 | ||
| Input shape | (224,224,3) | (299,299,3) | (224,224,3) | (224,224,3) | (299,299,3) | (224,224,3) | (224,224,3) |
| 1.5GB | 250 MB | 152.75 MB | 270 MB | 250.6 MB | 27.57 MB | ||
| 143 0667 240 | 23 851 784 | 14 307 880 | 25 613 800 | 22 910 480 | 3 538 984 | ||
| Epochs | 30 | 30 | |||||
| Batch size | 32 | 32 | |||||
| Loss | Categorical crossentropy | Categorical crossentropy | |||||
| Optimizer | Adam (lr | Adam (lr | |||||
| Learning rate | |||||||
Details of the convolutional layers and other hyperparameter used in the proposed LMNet model Architecture.
| Layers | Filter/Stride | Output | 1 × 1 | 3 × 3 | 5 × 5 | 7 × 7 | Dilation | Activation | Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conv2D_1_a | 7 × 7/2 | 112 × 112 × 16 | 16 | LeakyRelu | 2368 | ||||
| Conv2D_1_b | 3 × 3/2 | 112 × 112 × 16 | 16 | LeakyRelu | 448 | ||||
| Add_1_b | 112 × 112 × 16 | 0 | |||||||
| Conv2D_2_a | 5 × 5/2 | 56 × 56 × 32 | 32 | LeakyRelu | 12 832 | ||||
| Conv2D_2_b | 1 × 1/2 | 56 × 56 × 32 | 32 | LeakyRelu | 544 | ||||
| Add_2_b | 56 × 56 × 32 | 0 | |||||||
| BatchNormalization | 56 × 56 × 32 | 128 | |||||||
| Conv2D_3_a | 1 × 1/2 | 28 × 28 × 16 | 16 | Relu | 528 | ||||
| Conv2D_3_b | 1 × 1/2 | 28 × 28 × 16 | 16 | Relu | 528 | ||||
| Conv2D_3_c | 1 × 1/2 | 28 × 28 × 16 | 16 | Relu | 528 | ||||
| Conv2D_3_d | 1 × 1/2 | 28 × 28 × 16 | 16 | Relu | 528 | ||||
| Add_3_a | 28 × 28 × 16 | 0 | |||||||
| Add_3_b | 28 × 28 × 16 | 0 | |||||||
| Conv2D_4_a | 3 × 3/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 32 | 3 | Relu | 4640 | |||
| Conv2D_4_b | 3 × 3/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 32 | 3 | Relu | 4640 | |||
| Conv2D_4_c | 3 × 3/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 32 | Relu | 4640 | ||||
| Conv2D_4_d | 3 × 3/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 32 | Relu | 4640 | ||||
| Add_4_a | 28 × 28 × 32 | 0 | |||||||
| Add_4_b | 28 × 28 × 32 | 0 | |||||||
| Conv2D_5_a | 5 × 5/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 64 | 2 | Relu | 51 264 | |||
| Conv2D_5_b | 5 × 5/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 64 | 2 | Relu | 51 264 | |||
| Conv2D_5_c | 5 × 5/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 64 | Relu | 51 264 | ||||
| Conv2D_5_d | 5 × 5/1 | 28 × 28 × 32 | 64 | Relu | 51 264 | ||||
| Concat | 28 × 28 × 256 | 0 | |||||||
| Conv2D_6_a | 3 × 3/2 | 13 × 13 × 256 | 256 | Relu | 590 080 | ||||
| Flatten | 1 × 1 × 43 264 | 0 | |||||||
| Dense | 3 | Softmax | 129 795 | ||||||
| 961,923 | |||||||||
Fig. 3Overview of model embedding and their working in IoMT devices.
Experimental outcomes of the pretrained transfer learning models.
| Model | Class | Precision | Recall | F1- score | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InceptionV3 | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 96.58% |
| Normal | 0.83 | 0.99 | 0.90 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.96 | ||
| Macro average | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.95 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.95 | ||
| Xception | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 97.52% |
| Normal | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.94 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 | ||
| Macro average | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| DenseNet169 | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 97.63% |
| Normal | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.95 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Macro average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| VGG19 | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 95.42% |
| Normal | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.91 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| Macro average | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.95 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | ||
| ResNet50V2 | COVID-19 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 97.44% |
| Normal | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.94 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 | ||
| Macro average | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| MobileNetV2 | COVID-19 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 97.83% |
| Normal | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.96 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Macro average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
Experimental outcomes of the Proposed LMNet, and Ensemble model.
| Model | Class | Precision | Recall | F1- score | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed LMNet model | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 96.03% |
| Normal | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.93 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.97 | ||
| Macro average | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||
| Proposed ensemble model | COVID-19 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 98.00% |
| Normal | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||
| Pneumonia | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Macro average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
| Weighted average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | ||
Fig. 4Performance Comparison of the proposed LMNet and ensemble model with the best performing pretrained MobileNetV2 model in term of precision, recall and F1-score.
Fig. 5Confusion matrix of the best performing pretrained (a) MobileNetV2, (b) Proposed LMNet and (c) Ensemble model.
Fig. 6AUC-ROC Curve for (A) MobileNetV2 (B) Proposed LMNet, and (C) Ensemble model.
Comparison with state-of-the-art models.
| Existing methods | Dataset used | Classes | Method used | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apostolopoulos and Mpesiana | X-rays(1428) | Dataset 1- COVID-19, Pneumonia and Normal | Transfer learning | Dataset 1 - 93.48% |
| X-rays(1442) | Dataset 2- COVID-19, Pneumonia and Healthy | Dataset 2 - 94.72% | ||
| Jaiswal et al. | CT-scans(2492) | COVID-19, Normal | DenseNet201 | 96.00% |
| Khan et al. | X-rays(192) | Normal, Pneumonia, COVID-19 | DCNN | 95.00% |
| Jain et al. | X-rays(6432) | Normal, COVID-19, Pneumonia | Transfer learning | 97.00% |
| Maghdid et al. | CTs, and X-rays(431) | Normal, COVID-19 | Transfer learning | 98.00% |
| Wang et al. | X-rays(13800) | Normal, COVID-19, Pneumonia | COVID-Net | 92.60% |
| Farooq at el. | X-rays(5941) | COVID-19, Normal, Bacterial, Pneumonia, Viral | COVID-ResNet | 96.23% |
| Ozturk et al. | X-rays(625) | Binary class: COVID-19, Normal | DarkCovidNet | Binary – 98.08% |
| X-rays(1125) | Multi-class: COVID-19, Normal, Pneumonia | Multi-class – 87.02% | ||
| X-rays(6426) | COVID-19, Normal, Pneumonia | LMNet | ||
| X-rays(6426) | COVID-19, Normal, Pneumonia | LMNet |
Fig. 7Parameters Vs Accuracy comparison.