COVID-19 Diagnosis in Chest X-rays Using Deep Learning and Majority Voting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 disease has spread all over the world, representing an intriguing challenge for humanity as a whole. The efficient diagnosis of humans infected by COVID-19 still remains an increasing need worldwide. The chest X-ray imagery represents, among others, one attractive means to detect COVID-19 cases efficiently. Many studies have reported the efficiency of using deep learning classifiers in diagnosing COVID-19 from chest X-ray images. They conducted several comparisons among a subset of classifiers to identify the most accurate. In this paper, we investigate the potential of the combination of state-of-the-art classifiers in achieving the highest possible accuracy for the detection of COVID-19 from X-ray. For this purpose, we conducted a comprehensive comparison study among 16 state-of-the-art classifiers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study considering this number of classifiers. This paper’s innovation lies in the methodology that we followed to develop the inference system that allows us to detect COVID-19 with high accuracy. The methodology consists of three steps: (1) comprehensive comparative study between 16 state-of-the-art classifiers; (2) comparison between different ensemble classification techniques, including hard/soft majority, weighted voting, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest; and (3) finding the combination of deep learning models and ensemble classification techniques that lead to the highest classification confidence on three classes. We found that using the Majority Voting approach is an adequate strategy to adopt in general cases for this task and may achieve an average accuracy up to 99.314%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".