Research on Intelligent Recognition Algorithm of Pneumonia Based on Deep Convolution and Attention Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pneumonia is a common infection that inflames the air sacs in the lungs, causing symptoms such as difficulty breathing and fever. Although pneumonia is not difficult to treat, prompt diagnosis is crucial. Without proper treatment, pneumonia can be fatal, especially in children and the elderly. Chest x-rays are an affordable way to diagnose pneumonia. Investigating an algorithmic model that can reliably and intelligently classify pneumonia based on chest X-ray images could greatly reduce the burden on physicians. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the four convolutional neural networks VGG16, ResNet50, DenseNet201, and DWA algorithm models are analyzed and given by comparing and investigating each model. The VGG16, ResNet50, and DenseNet201 network models are compared with the DWA model. When training the depthwise separable convolution with attention neural network (DWA), the training accuracy reaches 97.5%. The validation accuracy was 79% due to the model’s tendency to overfit, and the test dataset had 1175 X-ray images with a test accuracy of 96.1%. The experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of the attention mechanism and the reliability of the deeply separable convolutional neural network algorithm. The successful application of the deep learning algorithm proposed in this paper on pneumonia recognition will provide an objective, accurate, and fast solution for medical practitioners and can provide a fast and accurate pneumonia diagnosis system for doctors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".