| Literature DB >> 36010179 |
Chin Poo Lee1, Kian Ming Lim1.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a devastating impact on the social activity, economy and politics worldwide. Techniques to diagnose COVID-19 cases by examining anomalies in chest X-ray images are urgently needed. Inspired by the success of deep learning in various tasks, this paper evaluates the performance of four deep neural networks in detecting COVID-19 patients from their chest radiographs. The deep neural networks studied include VGG16, MobileNet, ResNet50 and DenseNet201. Preliminary experiments show that all deep neural networks perform promisingly, while DenseNet201 outshines other models. Nevertheless, the sensitivity rates of the models are below expectations, which can be attributed to several factors: limited publicly available COVID-19 images, imbalanced sample size for the COVID-19 class and non-COVID-19 class, overfitting or underfitting of the deep neural networks and that the feature extraction of pre-trained models does not adapt well to the COVID-19 detection task. To address these factors, several enhancements are proposed, including data augmentation, adjusted class weights, early stopping and fine-tuning, to improve the performance. Empirical results on DenseNet201 with these enhancements demonstrate outstanding performance with an accuracy of 0.999%, precision of 0.9899%, sensitivity of 0.98%, specificity of 0.9997% and F1-score of 0.9849% on the COVID-Xray-5k dataset.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; COVID-19; DenseNet; chest X-ray; chest radiograph; deep neural networks; fine-tuning; pre-trained
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010179 PMCID: PMC9406472 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Some sample COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 images from the COVID-Xray-5k dataset.
The summary of the existing works on COVID-19 diagnosis.
| Reference | Method | Dataset | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narin et al. (2020) [ | ResNet50 | 341 COVID-19, 2800 normal | 96.1 |
| Basu et al. (2020) [ | VGG16 | 305 COVID-19, 322 pneumonia, 350 normal, 50 others | 90.13 |
| Jain et al. (2021) [ | Xception | 576 COVID-19, 1583 normal and 4273 pneumonia | 97 (F1-score) |
| Ismael et al. (2021) [ | ResNet50, SVM | 180 COVID-19, 200 normal | 94.7 |
| Wang et al. (2020) [ | COVID-Net with PEPX | 358 COVID-19, 13617 others | 93.3 |
| Sitaula and Hossain (2020) [ | VGG16 with attention module | 2138 images | 87.49 |
| Ahsan et al. (2021) [ | VGG16 | 1979 COVID-19, 3111 normal | 99.49 |
| Abbas et al. (2021) [ | DeTraC model | 105 COVID-19, 80 normal, 15 SARS | 93.1 |
| Chakraborty et al. (2021) [ | Corona-Nidaan | 245 COVID-19, 5551 pneumonia, 8066 normal | 95 |
| Sharifrazi et al. (2021) [ | Sobel filter, CNN, SVM | 77 COVID-19, 256 normal | 99.02 |
| Aslan et al. (2022) [ | Densenet201, SVM | 219 COVID-19, 1341 normal, 1345 viral pneumonia | 96.29 |
| Tangudu et al. (2022) [ | MobileNet with RSC | 184 COVID-19, 5000 normal | 99.71 |
| Rehman et al. (2022) [ | BA-ELM | 184 COVID-19, 3000 normal | 95.7 |
Figure 2The architecture of the deep neural network for COVID-19 diagnosis.
The number of training and testing samples in the COVID-Xray-5k dataset.
| Dataset | COVID-19 | Non-COVID-19 | Total Samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Train Set | 84 | 2000 | 2084 |
| Test Set | 100 | 3000 | 3100 |
The hyperparameter settings of the deep neural networks.
| Parameter | Values |
|---|---|
| Image size | 224 × 224 |
| Batch size | 16 |
| Dropout rate | 0.2 |
| Training epoch | 50 |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Learning rate | 0.0001 |
Figure 3True Positive (TP), True Negative (TN), False Positive (FP) and False Negative (FN).
The performance of the pre-trained deep neural networks on the COVID-Xray-5k dataset.
| Deep Neural Network | Accuracy | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1-Score | Training Time (s) | Testing Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | 0.9835 | 0.9298 | 0.53 | 0.9987 | 0.6752 | 921.21 | 17.07 |
| MobileNetV2 | 0.9848 |
| 0.53 |
| 0.6928 | 464.10 | 6.29 |
| ResNet50V2 | 0.9832 | 0.9286 | 0.52 | 0.9987 | 0.6667 | 503.23 | 13.03 |
| DenseNet201 |
| 0.9667 |
| 0.9993 |
| 935.72 | 23.09 |
Figure 4The receiver operating characteristics curve of the pre-trained models.
Figure 5The confusion matrices of the pre-trained models: (a) VGG16, (b) MobileNetV2, (c) ResNet50V2 and (d) DenseNet201.
Figure 6Sample chest X-ray images: (a) original, (b) random cropping and (c) random cropping .
Figure 7Sample chest X-ray images: (a) original, (b) intensity normalization and , (c) intensity normalization and and (d) intensity normalization .
Figure 8The process flow of the proposed COVID-19 diagnosis with enhanced DenseNet201.
Figure 9The confusion matrices of DensetNet201 with enhancements: (a) DenseNet201 with data augmentation, (b) DenseNet201 with data augmentation and adjusted class weights, (c) DenseNet201 with data augmentation, adjusted class weights and early stopping and (d) DenseNet201 with data augmentation, adjusted class weights, early stopping and fine-tuning.
The performance of DenseNet201 with different enhancements (DA = data augmentation, CW = adjusted class weights, ES = early stopping and FT = finetuning).
| Enhancement | Accuracy | Precision | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet201 | 0.9858 | 0.9667 | 0.58 | 0.9993 | 0.7250 |
| DenseNet201 + DA | 0.9877 | 0.9079 | 0.69 | 0.9977 | 0.7841 |
| DenseNet201 + DA + CW | 0.9761 | 0.5833 | 0.91 | 0.9783 | 0.7109 |
| DenseNet201 + DA + CW + ES | 0.9810 | 0.6395 | 0.94 | 0.9823 | 0.7611 |
| DenseNet201 + DA + CW + ES + FT | 0.9990 | 0.9899 | 0.98 | 0.9997 | 0.9849 |
Comparison with the state-of-the-art deep neural network methods.
| Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| GoogleNet [ | 0.9971 | 0.9971 | 0.9994 |
| InceptionResNet [ | 0.9917 | 0.9917 | 0.9984 |
| ResNet50 [ | 0.9986 |
| 0.9988 |
| MobileNet [ | 0.9932 | 0.9932 | 0.9996 |
| MNRSC [ | 0.9971 | 0.9971 | 0.9988 |
| BA-ELM [ | 0.9570 | 0.9870 | 0.7150 |
|
|
| 0.9900 |
|