A Performance Study of CNN Architectures for the Autonomous Detection of COVID-19 Symptoms Using Cough and Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) methods have the potential to be used for detecting COVID-19 symptoms. However, the rationale for which DL method to use and which symptoms to detect has not yet been explored. In this paper, we present the first performance study which compares various convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures for the autonomous preliminary COVID-19 detection of cough and/or breathing symptoms. We compare and analyze residual networks (ResNets), visual geometry Groups (VGGs), Alex neural networks (AlexNet), densely connected networks (DenseNet), squeeze neural networks (SqueezeNet), and COVID-19 identification ResNet (CIdeR) architectures to investigate their classification performance. We uniquely train and validate both unimodal and multimodal CNN architectures using the EPFL and Cambridge datasets. Performance comparison across all modes and datasets showed that the VGG19 and DenseNet-201 achieved the highest unimodal and multimodal classification performance. VGG19 and DensNet-201 had high F1 scores (0.94 and 0.92) for unimodal cough classification on the Cambridge dataset, compared to the next highest F1 score for ResNet (0.79), with comparable F1 scores to ResNet for the larger EPFL cough dataset. They also had consistently high accuracy, recall, and precision. For multimodal detection, VGG19 and DenseNet-201 had the highest F1 scores (0.91) compared to the other CNN structures (≤0.90), with VGG19 also having the highest accuracy and recall. Our investigation provides the foundation needed to select the appropriate deep CNN method to utilize for non-contact early COVID-19 detection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".