| Literature DB >> 36236584 |
Muhammad Umar Nasir1, Muhammad Zubair2, Taher M Ghazal3,4, Muhammad Farhan Khan5, Munir Ahmad6, Atta-Ur Rahman7, Hussam Al Hamadi8, Muhammad Adnan Khan9, Wathiq Mansoor8.
Abstract
Kidney cancer is a very dangerous and lethal cancerous disease caused by kidney tumors or by genetic renal disease, and very few patients survive because there is no method for early prediction of kidney cancer. Early prediction of kidney cancer helps doctors start proper therapy and treatment for the patients, preventing kidney tumors and renal transplantation. With the adaptation of artificial intelligence, automated tools empowered with different deep learning and machine learning algorithms can predict cancers. In this study, the proposed model used the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)-based transfer learning technique with different deep learning algorithms to predict kidney cancer in its early stages, and for the patient's data security, the proposed model incorporates blockchain technology-based private clouds and transfer-learning trained models. To predict kidney cancer, the proposed model used biopsies of cancerous kidneys consisting of three classes. The proposed model achieved the highest training accuracy and prediction accuracy of 99.8% and 99.20%, respectively, empowered with data augmentation and without augmentation, and the proposed model achieved 93.75% prediction accuracy during validation. Transfer learning provides a promising framework with the combination of IoMT technologies and blockchain technology layers to enhance the diagnosing capabilities of kidney cancer.Entities:
Keywords: IoMT; blockchain; deep learning; kidney cancer; transfer learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236584 PMCID: PMC9572837 DOI: 10.3390/s22197483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Blockchain architecture.
Limitations of previous studies.
| Study | Model | Data | IoMT | Blockchain | Accuracy | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibrahim et al. [ | LSTM | miRNA (Feature) | NO | NO | 95% | More validation for clinical studies, handcrafted features |
| Sheehan et al. [ | DNN | CT Scan (Image) | NO | NO | 81% | Features issues, imbalance of data |
| Ren et al. [ | HNN | Clinical (Feature) | NO | NO | 89.7% | Handcrafted feature |
| Kallenberger et al. [ | RNN | Clinical (Feature) | NO | NO | 87% | Handcrafted feature |
| Vinod et al. [ | CNN | RCC (Image) | NO | NO | 92.61% | Imbalance data issues |
| Moreau et al. [ | CNN | Kits19 (Feature) | NO | NO | 89% | Handcrafted features, different stages for more local features |
| Lee et al. [ | DNN | RCC (Image) | NO | NO | 85% | Performance matrixes should be improved, imbalance data |
| Shalski [ | Vascular Tree | CT Scan (Image) | NO | NO | 92.1% | Feature selection and data segmentation, imbalance of data |
Figure 2The proposed IoMT-based model for the prediction of kidney cancer empowered with blockchain security using transfer learning.
Pseudocode IoMT-based proposed framework for the prediction of kidney cancer.
| Steps | Code |
|---|---|
| 1 | Data Source (h1, h2, h3, ………, hn) |
| 2 | IoMT (Data Source) |
| 3 | Data Preprocessing (Augmentation, Pixels Correction, Data Division) |
| 4 | Store Preprocessed Data |
| 5 | Transfer Learning |
| 6 | Import Test Data |
| 7 | Apply Texting (Predict Kidney Cancer) |
| 8 | Apply Statistical Matrix |
Figure 3Data samples from grade 0, grade 1, and grade 2 classes.
Training results of AlexNet simulation models empowered with IoMT and blockchain.
| AlexNet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Iterations | Learning Rate | Epoch | CA (%) | MCR (%) |
|
| 500 | 0.001 | 20 | 99.8 | 0.2 |
|
| 99.00 | 1.00 | |||
|
| 98.98 | 1.02 | |||
Figure 4Training progress of SGDM empowered with AlexNet to predict kidney cancer.
Figure 5Training progress of ADAM empowered with AlexNet to predict kidney cancer.
Figure 6Training progress of RMSPROP empowered with AlexNet to predict kidney cancer.
Testing confusion matrix of SGDM empowered with AlexNet (non-augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 6 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 5 |
Testing confusion matrix of RMSPROP empowered with AlexNet (non-augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 6 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 2 | 4 |
Testing confusion matrix of ADAM empowered with AlexNet (non-augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 5 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 5 |
Testing confusion matrix of SGDM empowered with AlexNet (augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 330 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 322 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 7 | 330 |
Testing confusion matrix of ADAM empowered with AlexNet (augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 330 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 321 | 1 |
|
| 8 | 7 | 322 |
Testing confusion matrix of RMSPROP empowered with AlexNet (augmented test data).
| Total Samples | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 327 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 0 | 319 | 3 |
|
| 10 | 3 | 324 |
Statistical parameter results for the proposed model for kidney cancer prediction empowered with IoMT and transfer learning (augmented test data).
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 99.20 | 0.80 | 100.00 | 99.85 | 99.85 | 99.70 | 100.00 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 660.00 |
|
|
| ||||||||
| 0.00 | 99.85 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 98.30 | 1.70 | 99.69 | 98.95 | 98.77 | 97.87 | 99.85 | 1.05 | 0.31 | 95.13 |
|
|
| ||||||||
| 0.00 | 98.77 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 98.18 | 1.82 | 96.14 | 99.23 | 97.30 | 98.48 | 98.03 | 0.77 | 3.86 | 125.56 |
|
|
| ||||||||
| 0.04 | 97.30 | ||||||||
Comparative analysis of the proposed framework with previous studies.
| Study | Model | Dataset | IoMT | Blockchain | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibrahim et al. [ | LSTM | miRNA (Feature) | NO | NO | 95% |
| Sheehan et al. [ | DNN | CT Scan (Image) | NO | NO | 81% |
| Ren et al. [ | HNN | Clinical (Feature) | NO | NO | 89.7% |
| Kallenberger et al. [ | RNN | Clinical (Feature) | NO | NO | 87% |
| Vinod et al. [ | CNN | RCC (Image) | NO | NO | 92.61% |
| Moreau et al. [ | CNN | Kits19 (Feature) | NO | NO | 89% |
| Lee et al. [ | DNN | RCC (Image) | NO | NO | 85% |
| Shalski [ | Vascular Tree | CT Scan (Image) | NO | NO | 92.1% |
| Benchmark [ | ResNet Custom | Biopsy (Image) | No | No | 79% |
| Benchmark [ | VGG Net | Biopsy (Image) | No | No | 20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|