MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192229377 · doi:10.1109/icc42927.2021.9500460

A Deep Learning-based System for Detecting COVID-19 Patients

2021· article· en· W3192229377 on OpenAlexaff
Nidal Nasser, Emad-ul-Haq Qazi, Muhammad Imran, Asmaa Ali, Abdulaziz Al-Helali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAlfaisal University
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningSensitivity (control systems)Deep learningSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Data miningPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 (Coronavirus) is a very contagious infection that has drawn the world public’s attention. Modeling such diseases can be extremely valuable in predicting their effects. Although classic statistical modeling may provide adequate models, it may also fail to understand the data's intricacy. An automatic COVID-19 detection system based on computed tomography (CT) scan or X-ray images is effective, but a robust system's design is a challenging problem. In this paper, motivated by the outstanding performance of deep learning (DL) in many solutions, we used DL based approach for computer-aided design (CAD) of the COVID-19 detection system. For this purpose, we used a state-of-the-art classification algorithm based on DL, i.e., ResNet50, to detect and classify whether the patients are normal or infected by COVID-19. We validate the proposed system's robustness and effectiveness by using two benchmark publicly available datasets (Covid-Chestxray-Dataset and Chex-Pert Dataset). The proposed system was trained on the collection of images from 80% of the datasets and tested with 20% of the data. Cross-validation is performed using a 10-fold cross-validation technique for performance evaluation. The results indicate that the proposed system gives an accuracy of 98.6%, a sensitivity of 97.3%, a specificity of 98.2%, and an F1-score of 97.87%. Results clearly show that the accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and F1-score of our proposed system are high, and it performs better than the existing state-of-the-art systems. The proposed system based on DL will be helpful in medical diagnosis research and health care systems.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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