| Literature DB >> 36185320 |
Ashwini Kumar Pradhan1, Debahuti Mishra1, Kaberi Das1, Mohammad S Obaidat2,3,4, Manoj Kumar5.
Abstract
The classification of medical images is significant among researchers and physicians for the early identification and clinical treatment of many disorders. Though, traditional classifiers require more time and effort for feature extraction and reduction from images. To overcome this problem, there is a need for a new deep learning method known as Convolution Neural Network (CNN), which shows the high performance and self-learning capabilities. In this paper,to classify whether a chest X-ray (CXR) image shows pneumonia (Normal) or COVID-19 illness, a test-bed analysis has been carried out between pre-trained CNN models like Visual Geometry Group (VGG-16), VGG-19, Inception version 3 (INV3), Caps Net, DenseNet121, Residual Neural Network with 50 deep layers (ResNet50), Mobile-Net and proposed CNN classifier. It has been observed that, in terms of accuracy, the proposed CNN model appears to be potentially superior to others. Additionally, in order to increase the performance of the CNN classifier, a nature-inspired optimization method known as Hill-Climbing Algorithm based CNN (CNN-HCA) model has been proposed to enhance the CNN model's parameters. The proposed CNN-HCA model performance is tested using a simulation study and contrasted to existing hybridized classifiers like as Particle Swarm Optimization (CNN-PSO) and CNN-Jaya. The proposed CNN-HCA model is compared with peer reviewed works in the same domain. The CXR dataset, which is freely available on the Kaggle repository, was used for all experimental validations. In terms of Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC), Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, F-score, and accuracy, the simulation findings show that the CNN-HCA is possibly superior than existing hybrid approaches. Each method employs a k-fold stratified cross-validation strategy to reduce over-fitting.Entities:
Keywords: COVID 19; Hill climbing algorithms; Image classification; Tailored convolutional neural network; X-Ray images
Year: 2022 PMID: 36185320 PMCID: PMC9513301 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-022-13826-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Fig. 1Block diagram of CNN
Fig. 2COVID-19 CXR image classification block diagram of the proposed hybrid model “CNN-HCA”
Architectural properties of the proposed CNN
| Layer | Layer Type | Input | Filters | Filter/ Kernel Dimension | Output | Parameters | Activation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer 1 | CL 1 | 15 | 16 | 3 | 15 | 448 | ReLU |
| Layer 2 | MPL1 | 15 | 2 | 15 | 0 | ||
| Layer 3 | CL 2 | 7 | 32 | 3 | 7 | 4640 | ReLU |
| Layer 4 | MPL2 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 0 | ||
| Layer 5 | CL 3 | 3 | 64 | 3 | 3 | 48496 | ReLU |
| Layer 6 | MPL 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Layer 7 | Flatten | 1 | 64 | ||||
| Layer 8 | Dense 1 | 1 | 512 | 33280 | ReLU | ||
| Layer 9 | Dense 2 | 1 | 1 | 513 | Sigmoid |
Data augmentation parameters utilised in the dataset before the training and testing phases
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Horizontal flip | TRUE |
| Vertical flip | TRUE |
| Rotation | 3 degrees |
| Zoom in | 0.06 |
| Width shift range | 0.07 |
| Width height range | 0.06 |
Data-set description
| Sample Type | Training Data-set | Testing Data-set | Sample Source | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #Samples Positive | #Samples Negative | #Samples Positive | #Samples Negative | ||
| COVID-19 | 56 | 56 | 14 | 14 | Kaggle CXR dataset |
| Pneumonia | 32 | 32 | 8 | 8 | |
| Total | 176 (100%) | 44 (100%) | |||
Fig. 3Different samples of CXR image
Comparison of accuracy between CNN model and pre-trained deep learning models using the different combination of the epoch, batch size, loss function in the same CXR COVID dataset by manual search to quantify hyper-parameter values
| Pre-trained model | Epoch | Batch Size | Loss function | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG-16 | 10 | 5 | Cross Entropy | 0.78 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.75 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.79 | ||
| VGG-19 | 10 | 5 | Label Smoothing | 0.8 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.78 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.76 | ||
| INV3 | 10 | 5 | Label Smoothing | 0.84 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.79 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.65 | ||
| Caps Net | 10 | 5 | Cross Entropy | 0.8 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.78 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.71 | ||
| DenseNet121 | 10 | 5 | Label Smoothing | 0.69 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.79 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.81 | ||
| ResNet50 | 10 | 5 | Cross Entropy | 0.81 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.76 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.82 | ||
| MobileNet | 10 | 5 | Label Smoothing | 0.65 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.74 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.78 | ||
| Proposed CNN model | 10 | 5 | Cross Entropy | 0.82 |
| 20 | 10 | 0.86 | ||
| 30 | 20 | 0.81 |
The bold value indicates the best results
Estimation of dropout, batch normalization layer, and learning rate for proposed CNN model in the final Convolution layer
| Learning rate | Dropout | BNL | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.001 | 0.7 | Yes | 0.77 |
| 0.001 | 0.9 | No | 0.74 |
| 0.0009 | 0.3 | No | 0.82 |
| 0.0005 | 0.4 | No | 0.81 |
| 0.001 | 0.5 | Yes | 0.82 |
| 0.0001 | 0.5 | Yes | 0.86 |
Necessary parameter values for HCA in collaboration with the suggested CNN
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Highest iterations | 50 |
| Population | 30 |
| Filter size bounds | [3,10] |
| Neurons in first FCL bounds | [50,600] |
HCA calculated the optimal settings for the hyper-parameters
| Hyper-parameters | Best feasible value |
|---|---|
| Filter dimension | 7 |
| Total number of neurons of the first FCL | 512 |
Comparison of the suggested hybrid model’s sensitivity, specificity, F-score, AUC, and accuracy to others
| Models | Sensitivity | Specificity | F-Score | AUC | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.8511 | - | 0.86 |
| CNN-PSO | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.8842 | 0.9204 | 0.8894 |
| CNN-Jaya | 0.9 | 0.86 | 0.8721 | 0.9028 | 0.8795 |
| CNN-HCA | 0.92 | 0.891 | 0.9025 | 0.9794 | 0.9 |
Fig. 5Comparison of hybridized models based on RoC and Convergence Curve
A comparison of the proposed approach’s results with the best results obtained by the other offered techniques
| Approaches | # samples | # Classes | accuracy | precision | recall | f-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN [ | 400 COVID-19(+), 60 COVID-19(-) | 2 Classes | 85% | 69.5% | 80.5% | - |
| LSTM [ | 520 COVID-19(-), 80 Healthy(+) | 2 Classes | 86.66% | 86.7% | 99.42% | 91.8% |
| ResNet-50 [ | 195 COVID-19(+), 258 COVID-19 (-) | 2 Classes | 76.00% | 61..5% | 91% | - |
| Proposed study | 110 COVID-19(+),110 Pneumonia | 2 Classes | 90% | 94% | 92% | 90.25% |