Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34335736›Full record

ArticleEURASIP journal on advances in signal processing2021

A comparative study of multiple neural network for detection of COVID-19 on chest X-ray.

Anis Shazia, Tan Zi Xuan, Joon Huang Chuah, Juliana Usman, Pengjiang Qian, Khin Wee Lai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EURASIP journal on advances in signal processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A fuzzy fine-tuned model for COVID-19 diagnosis.Computers in biology and medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anis ShaziaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tan Zi XuanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Joon Huang ChuahDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Juliana UsmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Pengjiang QianSchool of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, Jiangnan University, 1800 Lihu Avenue, Jiangsu 214122 Wuxi, People's Republic of China.
Khin Wee LaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-8602-0533

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronavirus disease of 2019 or COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading viral infection that has affected millions all over the world. With its rapid spread and increasing numbers, it is becoming overwhelming for the healthcare workers to rapidly diagnose the condition and contain it from spreading. Hence it has become a necessity to automate the diagnostic procedure. This will improve the work efficiency as well as keep the healthcare workers safe from getting exposed to the virus. Medical image analysis is one of the rising research areas that can tackle this issue with higher accuracy. This paper conducts a comparative study of the use of the recent deep learning models (VGG16, VGG19, DenseNet121, Inception-ResNet-V2, InceptionV3, Resnet50, and Xception) to deal with the detection and classification of coronavirus pneumonia from pneumonia cases. This study uses 7165 chest X-ray images of COVID-19 (1536) and pneumonia (5629) patients. Confusion metrics and performance metrics were used to analyze each model. Results show DenseNet121 (99.48% of accuracy) showed better performance when compared with the other models in this study.

Indexed as

Artificial neural networksClassificationCOVID-19Deep learningDenseNet121Multi-task learningTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID34335736
PMCPMC8314263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.