MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of COVID-19 on Chest X-Ray Images using Inverted Residuals Structure-Based Convolutional Neural Networks

2020· article· en· W3126902822 on OpenAlexaff
Tita Karlita, Eko Mulyanto Yuniarno, I Ketut Eddy Purnama, Mauridhi Hery Purnomo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoolingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Dropout (neural networks)Convolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceF1 scorePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China officially reported the COVID-19 coronavirus's existence to the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 31, 2019. Since then, it has spread and has infected millions of people around the world. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease and it can cause severe respiratory distress. In severe cases it can result in failure of the function of organs simultaneously. Recent studies have shown that chest X-rays of patients suffering from COVID-19 show the specific characteristics of those infected with the virus. This paper presents a method to detect the presence of COVID-19 on chest X-ray images based on inverted residuals structure implemented in MobileNetV2 as a base model. We also explore the performance of using a Fully connected layer with dropout and using the Global Average Pooling layer as top layers of the base model to classify each image into COVID-19 or NonCOVID-19. Our proposed method was able to achieve COVID-19 detection with the best accuracy of 0.81, with precision, recall, and F1-score of 0.81, 0.75, and 0.77, respectively, using the Global Average Pooling layer with data augmentation version.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207