| Literature DB >> 36124000 |
Shouvik Chakraborty1, Kalyani Mali1.
Abstract
COVID-19 causes an ongoing worldwide pandemic situation. The non-discovery of specialized drugs and/or any other kind of medicines makes the situation worse. Early diagnosis of this disease will be certainly helpful to start the treatment early and also to bring down the dire spread of this highly infectious virus. This article describes the proposed novel unsupervised segmentation method to segment the radiological image samples of the chest area that are accumulated from the COVID-19 infected patients. The proposed approach is helpful for physicians, medical technologists, and other related experts in the quick and early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. The proposed approach will be the SUFEMO (SUperpixel based Fuzzy Electromagnetism-like Optimization). This approach is developed depending on some well-known theories like the Electromagnetism-like optimization algorithm, the type-2 fuzzy logic, and the superpixels. The proposed approach brings down the processing burden that is required to deal with a considerably large amount of spatial information by assimilating the notion of the superpixel. In this work, the EMO approach is modified by utilizing the type 2 fuzzy framework. The EMO approach updates the cluster centers without using the cluster center updation equation. This approach is independent of the choice of the initial cluster centers. To decrease the related computational overhead of handling a lot of spatial data, a novel superpixel-based approach is proposed in which the noise-sensitiveness of the watershed-based superpixel formation approach is dealt with by computing the nearby minima from the gradient image. Also, to take advantage of the superpixels, the fuzzy objective function is modified. The proposed approach was evaluated using both qualitatively and quantitatively using 310 chest CT scan images that are gathered from various sources. Four standard cluster validity indices are taken into consideration to quantify the results. It is observed that the proposed approach gives better performance compared to some of the state-of-the-art approaches in terms of both qualitative and quantitative outcomes. On average, the proposed approach attains Davies-Bouldin index value of 1.812008792, Xie-Beni index value of 1.683281, Dunn index value 2.588595748, and β index value 3.142069236 for 5 clusters. Apart from this, the proposed approach is also found to be superior with regard to the rate of convergence. Rigorous experiments prove the effectiveness of the proposed approach and establish the real-life applicability of the proposed method for the initial filtering of the COVID-19 patients.Entities:
Keywords: Biomedical image segmentation; COVID-19; Radiological image elucidation; Superpixel; Unsupervised clustering
Year: 2022 PMID: 36124000 PMCID: PMC9474408 DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Soft Comput ISSN: 1568-4946 Impact factor: 8.263
Some significant findings in the CT scans of the chest regions that are collected from COVID-19 positive patients [23].
| Name of the observed property in the chest CT scan image of the chest region of the COVID-19 infected patients | Explanation/Meaning | Percentage of the observed samples |
|---|---|---|
| Ground-glass opacities (GGO) | It refers to a portion of the lungs with increased attenuation. | 100% |
| Multilobe and posterior involvement | Impact on both lobes and posterior area. | 93% |
| Bilateral pneumonia | It means that pneumonia has attacked both lungs i.e., double pneumonia. | 91% |
| Sub-segmental vessel enlargement ( | It is marked as vessel diameter greater than 3 mm | 89% |
A quick run-through of the related methods.
| Reference | Category | Real-life deployment locations (NA indicates not available) | Important points | Future scopes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. | Supervised approach | Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, China | • It is a deep learning-based approach that is used to determine the presence of COVID-19 by analyzing high-resolution chest CT scans. The focal area is selected by exploiting the UNet++ framework. | • Some variants of the UNet++ model can be applied to test the performance. |
| Wang et al. | Supervised approach | NA | • This work exploits the advantages of the modified transfer learning to analyze CT scan images and bring out some useful features. | • Some hybrid transfer learning approaches can be evaluated and compared with this approach. |
| Butt et al. | Supervised approach | NA | • A three-dimensional CNN-based segmentation method is developed for effective segmentation of the infected areas of the chest using the CT images. | • Attempts can be made to improve the feature representation. |
| Xu et al. | Supervised approach | NA | • Two 3D CNN-based classification methods are hybridized and a novel classification approach is presented. | • Attempts can be made to improve the accuracy of the system. |
| Jin et al. | Supervised approach | 16 different hospitals in China | • A Transfer learning-supported framework is designed that can effectively analyze CT images. | • Same approach can be exploited and evaluated after incorporating various other standard models. |
| Wang et al. | Weakly-supervised approach | NA | • This is a lung lesion detection approach that analyzes the chest CT chest using a weakly supervised model. | • The proposed approach can also be used to develop a new segmentation model by incorporating different architectures and segmentation backbone. |
| Mohammed et al. | Weakly-supervised approach | NA | • It is weakly-supervised that can perform the segmentation job with the help of the segmentation mask. | • This problem can also be extended to the multiclass classification problem. |
| Laradji et al. | Weakly-supervised approach | NA | • This work is a feebly regulated methodology that utilizes a few focuses to check the tainted regions that can viably discover the depictions naturally. | • The point checking method may incorporate gradient information efficiently. |
| Laradji et al. | Weakly-supervised | NA | • This is a feebly regulated methodology that can mark the CT pictures successfully and in a timebound style. | • This approach can be further extended to reduce the existing annotation overheads. |
| Gozes et al. | Supervised approach | NA | • This methodology can robotize the investigation interaction of the chest CT pictures utilizing a 2D profound CNN. | • This approach can be further investigated and may be deployed in real-life robotic disease investigation. |
| Chakraborty et al. | Unsupervised approach | NA | • A morphological recreation activity-based chest CT picture division approach is proposed in this work. | • This approach can be further extended to compare the obtained results with some other standard approaches like dice coefficient, accuracy etc. so that the performance of this approach can be assessed with respect to some manually delineated images. |
| Han et al. | Semi-Supervised approach | NA | • This methodology is a semi-supervised methodology that analyzes the COVID-19 infection from the chest CT examine pictures. | • This approach can be applied to different modalities of the biomedical images. |
Fig. 1Illustration of the superposition principle which is used to compute the cumulative force in EMO algorithm.
Fig. 2Illustration of the impact of the diverse sizes of the structuring elements (a)–(h) the superpixel pictures delivered by applying the circle structuring elements of size 3 to 10 separately.
Fig. 3Illustration of the impact of the diverse sizes of the structuring elements (a)–(h) the superpixel pictures delivered by applying the square structuring elements of size 3 to 10 separately.
Fig. 4Graphical portrayal of the size of the organizing component and the number of superpixels (in -axis (1,2,….,8), the size of the structuring element is plotted and in -axis (0,500,100,….,3500) the count of the superpixels is plotted) (a) Circle Structuring element, (b) Square Structuring element.
Fig. 5The flow diagram of the proposed SUFEMO technique.
The controlling variables and their selected values.
| Controlling variable | Selected value |
|---|---|
| Population size | 20 |
| 350 | |
| 50 | |
| The local search parameter | 0.005 |
| Number of clusters | Subjective |
Fig. 6Stepwise graphical explanation of the proposed approach along with detailed flow diagram.
Fig. 7Some sample test images.
Brief details of some images.
| Id | Image view | Image source | Description | Courtesy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saggital | This is a CT image of the chest area of 64 years of age, female patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Wenzhou, China. Some significant perceptions are accounted for, for example, ground-glass opacities in the right upper, center, and lower lobes and furthermore in the lingula. Some atelectasis can be seen in the right lower lobe. | Omir Antunes Paiva, Dr. Rodrigo Caruso Chate, Wenzhou Medical University, and coronacases.org | ||
| Coronal | This is a CT examined the image of the chest area of 55 years of age, female patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Wenzhou, China. Some significant perceptions are accounted for, for example, different ground-glass opacities with reticulation and little foci of solidification in every single aspiratory lobe. | |||
| Axial | This is a CT image of the chest area of 55 years of age, female patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Taoyuan General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Some significant perceptions are accounted for, for example, numerous ground-glass opacities with reticulation and little foci of consolidation in every pneumonic lobe. | NA | ||
| Coronal | This is a CT examination image of the chest locale of 70 years of age, male patient who is tainted with COVID-19 from Riccione, Italy. Some significant perceptions and elements are accounted for, for example, ground-glass opacities in the lower right and the upper lobes and Paraseptal emphysema in the upper lobes. | Dr. Domenico Nicoletti, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 74724 | ||
| Axial | This is a CT image of the chest area of 70 years of age, female patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Ospedale Santo Spirito. Rome, Italy. Some significant perceptions and elements are accounted for, for example, respective ground-glass opacities and mediastinal lymph hubs. | Dr. Fabio Macori, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 74887 | ||
| Axial | This is a CT image of the chest area of a 54 years of age, male patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Korea. Some significant perceptions and components are accounted for, for example, combination in the right upper lobes and ground-glass opacities in both lower lobes. | NA | ||
| Coronal | This is a CT scan of the chest locale of a 50 years of age, male patient who is tainted with COVID-19 from Italy. | |||
| Axial | This is a CT image of the chest district of a 45 years of age, male patient who is contaminated with COVID-19 from Italy. Some significant perceptions and provisions are accounted for like various ground glass thickness. | |||
| Axial | This is a CT image of the chest area of 50 years of age, male patient who is tainted with COVID-19 from Iran. Some significant perceptions and provisions are accounted for, for example, two-sided ground-glass opacities in the two lungs. | Dr. Bahman Rasuli, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 74576 | ||
| Frontal | This picture is gathered from 25 years of age, male patient. | Dr. Andrew Dixon, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 36676 | ||
Fig. 8Comparison of various techniques using for various count of the clusters.
Fig. 9Segmented results for various number of clusters which are acquired by applying the SUFEMO technique.
The quantitative examination of various segmentation strategies utilizing the (The satisfactory values are featured in strong face).
| Index | Image | Applied algorithm | Count of the clusters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | |||
| Davies–Bouldin | Average | Efficient GA | 2.057389792 | 2.341342543 | 2.631067668 | 2.182999317 |
| Adaptive PSO | 1.466742939 | 2.262712553 | 2.300312783 | 1.649374921 | ||
| Beam-ACO | 1.49016067 | 1.906178838 | 2.109355593 | 1.852796881 | ||
| MCS method | 2.125579881 | 2.355334741 | 1.756786889 | 1.832064307 | ||
| HHO method | 1.615224562 | 1.702627053 | 2.204451965 | 2.647738311 | ||
| GWO approach | 1.835247126 | 1.767716428 | 2.946051439 | 2.722753129 | ||
| Whale optimization | 1.767607021 | 2.528863859 | 2.803699012 | 2.316640263 | ||
| Chimp optimization | 2.415340941 | 2.350907067 | 2.433318413 | 2.553789173 | ||
| Neural network based segmentation | 1.606792734 | 2.297489919 | ||||
| SUFEMO (Proposed) | 1.812008792 | 1.687189337 | ||||
| Xie–Beni Index | Average | Efficient GA | 1.624786762 | 1.709276519 | 2.207538007 | 2.649905004 |
| adaptive PSO | 1.849336068 | 1.786084272 | 2.948651807 | 2.735604899 | ||
| Beam-ACO | 1.784413031 | 2.534017353 | 2.806131272 | 2.335561186 | ||
| MCS method | 2.435244805 | 2.353755926 | 2.446036152 | 2.554270162 | ||
| HHO method | 2.038041 | 2.334152 | 2.612432 | 2.9165278 | ||
| GWO approach | 1.448495 | 2.246186 | 2.295493 | 2.631099 | ||
| Whale optimization | 1.475947 | 1.904366 | 2.105878 | 2.833088 | ||
| Chimp optimization | 2.107597 | 2.351055 | 2.754129 | 2.819813 | ||
| Neural network based segmentation | 1.61375 | 2.595974 | ||||
| SUFEMO (Proposed) | 1.697662119 | |||||
| Dunn index | Average | efficient GA | 1.326722693 | 2.295283281 | 2.334360301 | 2.013982282 |
| Adaptive PSO | 1.517242172 | 1.803836769 | 1.405798931 | 1.331685373 | ||
| Beam-ACO | 1.458856701 | 1.438020506 | 2.154291777 | 2.655296748 | ||
| MCS method | 1.906901194 | 1.853224645 | 3.028592536 | |||
| HHO method | 1.230797 | 1.306074 | 2.353937 | 2.016582 | ||
| GWO approach | 1.726747 | 1.815292 | 1.9218 | 2.244343 | ||
| Whale optimization | 1.459989 | 1.552861 | 2.455488 | 2.763597 | ||
| Chimp optimization | 2.122828 | 1.66564 | 2.44328 | 2.732422 | ||
| Neural network based segmentation | 2.546459 | 2.504361 | 2.362737 | 2.28769 | ||
| SUFEMO (Proposed) | 2.350004016 | |||||
| Average | Efficient GA | 0.48298906 | 1.855825929 | 1.935245603 | 1.513778012 | |
| Adaptive PSO | 2.199301495 | 2.028453938 | 2.538635827 | 2.158815625 | ||
| Beam-ACO | 1.442986088 | 2.053681742 | 1.724977482 | 1.834309177 | ||
| MCS method | 2.749255434 | 2.711009201 | 2.967283554 | |||
| HHO method | 2.486583 | 2.864695 | 2.941107 | 1.92769 | ||
| GWO approach | 2.517785 | 2.947065 | 2.855919 | 2.859128 | ||
| Whale optimization | 2.367244 | 2.728644 | 2.449435 | |||
| Chimp optimization | 2.766324 | 2.521449 | 3.011658 | 2.969639 | ||
| Neural network based segmentation | 2.849432 | 3.77819 | 2.936146 | |||
| SUFEMO (Proposed) | 2.830809221 | 3.142069236 | 3.790172244 | |||
Fig. 10Graphical analysis of the impact of noise on the segmentation approach. The experiment is carried out by intentionally corrupting the actual image with (A) Gaussian noise, (B) Poisson noise, (C) Salt & Pepper noise, (d) Speckle noise, and (e) Random noise.
Fig. 11Analysis of the compactness. In the -axis, the Gaussian sigma values are plotted and, in the -axis, the value of the compactness is plotted.
Fig. 12The graphical investigation of the convergence for various strategies and for various numbers of clusters. The value of the Xie–Beni file for the image is plotted in the -axis and the number of iterations is plotted in the -axis in the curves which are plotted using (a) efficient genetic algorithm, (b) adaptive PSO, (c) Beam-ACO, (d) MCS, (e) SUFEMO (proposed).
Highlight of the average running time (in seconds). (Here, bold values represent the optimum values).
| Validity index | No. of clusters | Efficient GA | Adaptive PSO | Beam-ACO | MCS method | SUFEMO (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davies–Bouldin | 3 | 5.632118308 | 6.06447709 | 6.307048099 | 4.77056936 | |
| 5 | 7.75891844 | 7.307822803 | 6.447645005 | 7.66689135 | ||
| 7 | 10.12569268 | 8.691811737 | 9.725285724 | 9.129117881 | ||
| 9 | 10.68855921 | 11.96574569 | 12.6046745 | 11.30800471 | ||
| Xie–Beni | 3 | 7.995793286 | 7.567331723 | 6.929007742 | 7.259451485 | |
| 5 | 7.932629598 | 9.483773293 | 7.722648938 | 9.639173777 | ||
| 7 | 9.890749976 | 10.58437821 | 10.58981477 | 10.75583124 | ||
| 9 | 15.05453316 | 11.91401094 | 13.93447588 | 12.32138991 | ||
| Dunn | 3 | 5.155860842 | 6.147312867 | 6.790409689 | 6.939818022 | |
| 5 | 5.767406518 | 6.222150591 | 6.776808716 | 8.155608882 | ||
| 7 | 12.89436908 | 12.15626026 | 12.45983762 | 8.88412483 | ||
| 9 | 16.04382736 | 14.56314442 | 13.52474775 | 15.12863995 | ||
| 3 | 5.792550727 | 6.151831356 | 5.824847612 | 7.470809597 | ||
| 5 | 8.528548345 | 9.155279873 | 7.578897528 | 7.4540355 | ||
| 7 | 13.66627615 | 15.54143115 | 16.47834472 | 12.23066683 | ||
| 9 | 14.76384207 | 15.55533245 | 15.09298717 | 13.23624317 | ||
Summary of the symbols used in this work.
| Symbol | Description | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Represents the force that is exerted by a particle in EMO approach | ||
| A particle in the EMO approach | ||
| Represents a non-linear function | ||
| Represents a region which is bounded by the lower and the upper bounds | ||
| The size of the initial population | ||
| Global iteration counter | Please refer Algorithm 1 | |
| Local iteration counter | Please refer Algorithm 1 | |
| The controlling parameter of the local search | ||
| Represents the membership value of the point | ||
| Represents the fuzzifier | Please refer Eq. | |
| The fuzzy objective function | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the number of available data points and the number of cluster centers. | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the number of available data points and the number of cluster centers. | Please refer Eq. | |
| The | Please refer Eq. | |
| The modified membership value in type-2 fuzzy clustering system | Please refer Eq. | |
| A small threshold value | Please refer Algorithm 2 | |
| Morphological erosion operation | Please refer Eq. | |
| Morphological dilation operation | Please refer Eq. | |
| Morphological erosion-based reconstruction operation | Please refer Eq. | |
| Morphological dilation-based reconstruction operation. | Please refer Eq. | |
| The original image | Please refer Eq. | |
| The marker image | Please refer Eq. | |
| The structuring Element | Please refer Eqs. | |
| The morphological opening operation | Please refer Eq. | |
| The morphological closing operation | Please refer Eq. | |
| The controlling parameter for the structuring elements. | The count of the structuring elements can be controlled depending on the range of the controlling parameter | |
| A small threshold value that can be used as the error rate and depending on this value the local minima from the gradient images can be discarded. | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the minimum and the maximum values of the representative point of a superpixel. | Please refer Algorithm 3 | |
| Represents the Davies–Bouldin index | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the Xie–Beni index | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the Dunn index | Please refer Eq. | |
| Represents the | Please refer Eq. | |
| The isoperimetric quotient for the | Please refer Eq. | |
| Area of the | Please refer Eq. | |
| The shape perimeter of the | Please refer Eq. | |
| Compactness of a superpixel image | Please refer Eq. | |
| Set of superpixel | Please refer Eq. |