A comparison between CNN and combined CNN-LSTM for chest X-ray based COVID-19 detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 detection through radiological examination is favoured since it is fast and produces more accurate results than the laboratory approach. However, when it has infected many people and put a strain on the healthcare system, the need for fast, automatic COVID-19 detection in patients has become critical. This study proposes to detect COVID-19 from chest X-ray (CXR) images with a machine learning approach. The main contributions of this paper are to compare two powerful deep learning models, i.e., convolutional neural networks (CNN) and the combination of CNN and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). In the combination model, CNN is recommended for feature extraction, and COVID-19 is classified using the features of LSTM. The dataset used in this study amounted to 4,095 CXR images, consisting of 1,400 images of normal conditions, 1,350 images of COVID-19, and 1,345 images of pneumonia. Both CNN and CNN-LSTM were executed in a similar experimental setup and evaluated using a confusion matrix. The experiment results provide evidence that the CNN-LTSM is better than the CNN deep learning model, with an overall accuracy of about 98.78%. Furthermore, it has a precision and recall of 99% and 98%, respectively. These findings will be valuable in the fast and accurate detection of COVID-19.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".