| Literature DB >> 36148416 |
Shubham Joshi1, Shraddha Viraj Pandit2, Piyush Kumar Shukla3, Atiah H Almalki4,5, Nashwan Adnan Othman6, Adnan Alharbi7, Musah Alhassan8.
Abstract
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), which is a developing technology in medical applications that assists physicians in making more informed decisions regarding patients' courses of treatment, has become increasingly widespread in recent years in the field of healthcare. On the other hand, the number of PET scans that are being performed is rising, and radiologists are getting significantly overworked as a result. As a direct result of this, a novel approach that goes by the name "computer-aided diagnostics" is now being investigated as a potential method for reducing the tremendous workloads. A Smart Lung Tumor Detector and Stage Classifier (SLD-SC) is presented in this study as a hybrid technique for PET scans. This detector can identify the stage of a lung tumour. Following the development of the modified LSTM for the detection of lung tumours, the proposed SLD-SC went on to develop a Multilayer Convolutional Neural Network (M-CNN) for the classification of the various stages of lung cancer. This network was then modelled and validated utilising standard benchmark images. The suggested SLD-SC is now being evaluated on lung cancer pictures taken from patients with the disease. We observed that our recommended method gave good results when compared to other tactics that are currently being used in the literature. These findings were outstanding in terms of the performance metrics accuracy, recall, and precision that were assessed. As can be shown by the much better outcomes that were achieved with each of the test images that were used, our proposed method excels its rivals in a variety of respects. In addition to this, it achieves an average accuracy of 97 percent in the categorization of lung tumours, which is much higher than the accuracy achieved by the other approaches.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148416 PMCID: PMC9489382 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4608145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Input image.
Existing methodology with comparison of the performance metrics.
| Paper details | Techniques used in the existing methodology | Datasets available | Accuracy rate of the existing work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tafadzwa et al. (2021) | Supervised CNN predictor | LUAD | AUC = 71% |
| Pragya et al. (2021) | SVM, KNN, and CNN | LIDC-IDRI, LUNA 16 | Accuracy = 91% |
| Kalaivani et al. (2021) | Deep CNN model | LIDC-IDRI | Accuracy = 90.85% |
| Khalifa et al. | BPSO-DT | LUNA | Acc = 88.25% |
| Abdulgani et al. | TEP classification model | LUAD | Accuracy = 92.65 |
Figure 2Proposed work framework.
Patient ID with stages.
| Patient ID | Stage |
|---|---|
| LUNG1-001 | 2 |
| LUNG1-002 | 2 |
| LUNG1-003 | 2 |
| LUNG1-004 | 2 |
| LUNG1-005 | 4 |
| LUNG1-006 | 3 |
LSTM features.
| Layer 1 | Layer 2 | Layer |
|---|---|---|
| 64 | 64 | 64 |
| 256 | 256 | 256 |
Figure 3Structure of LSTM network.
Figure 4CT image after preprocessing.
Figure 5Segmented input image dataset.
Figure 6Overall proposed structure performance analysis 1.
Figure 7Overall analysis of performance.
Figure 8Classification based on image database.
Figure 9Basic CNN structure.
Figure 10Architecture of the proposed technique.
Lung tumor stages classified based on its size.
| Features | Extracted |
|---|---|
| Standard deviation | 0.12346 |
| Mean | 0.24597 |
| Median | 0.36798 |
| Entropy | 0.46479 |
| Skewness | 0.89764 |
Estimated classification results for test data.
| Images | Classification trained | Classification tested |
|---|---|---|
| Img 1 | Class 1 | Class 1 |
| Img 2 | Class 2 | Class 2 |
| Img 3 | Class 1 | Class 1 |
| Img 4 | Class 1 | Class 1 |
| Img 5 | Class 2 | Class 2 |
| Img 6 | Class 1 | Class 1 |
| Img 7 | Class 2 | Class 1 |
Figure 11Virtual monitoring and E-diagnosis framework.
Figure 12IoMT framework.
Figure 13Estimated performance metrics for validating the proposed SLD-SC model.
Figure 14Performance analysis of TP, FP, and accuracy.
Figure 15Performance metrics for IoT with Cloud-based system.