Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34388187›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Deep-learning based detection of COVID-19 using lung ultrasound imagery.

Julia Diaz-Escobar, Nelson E Ordóñez-Guillén, Salvador Villarreal-Reyes, Alejandro Galaviz-Mosqueda, Vitaly Kober, Raúl Rivera-Rodriguez, Jose E Lozano Rizk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Efficient Lung Ultrasound Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

7 authors.

Julia Diaz-EscobarCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.ORCID 0000-0001-6941-2730
Nelson E Ordóñez-GuillénCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Salvador Villarreal-ReyesCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Alejandro Galaviz-MosquedaCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Vitaly KoberCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Raúl Rivera-RodriguezCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Jose E Lozano RizkCICESE Research Center, Ensenada, Baja California, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of healthcare services worldwide, especially in underdeveloped countries. There is a clear need to develop novel computer-assisted diagnosis tools to provide rapid and cost-effective screening in places where massive traditional testing is not feasible. Lung ultrasound is a portable, easy to disinfect, low cost and non-invasive tool that can be used to identify lung diseases. Computer-assisted analysis of lung ultrasound imagery is a relatively recent approach that has shown great potential for diagnosing pulmonary conditions, being a viable alternative for screening and diagnosing COVID-19.

objectiveTo evaluate and compare the performance of deep-learning techniques for detecting COVID-19 infections from lung ultrasound imagery.

methodsWe adapted different pre-trained deep learning architectures, including VGG19, InceptionV3, Xception, and ResNet50. We used the publicly available POCUS dataset comprising 3326 lung ultrasound frames of healthy, COVID-19, and pneumonia patients for training and fine-tuning. We conducted two experiments considering three classes (COVID-19, pneumonia, and healthy) and two classes (COVID-19 versus pneumonia and COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19) of predictive models. The obtained results were also compared with the POCOVID-net model. For performance evaluation, we calculated per-class classification metrics (Precision, Recall, and F1-score) and overall metrics (Accuracy, Balanced Accuracy, and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve). Lastly, we performed a statistical analysis of performance results using ANOVA and Friedman tests followed by post-hoc analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the Holm's step-down correction.

resultsInceptionV3 network achieved the best average accuracy (89.1%), balanced accuracy (89.3%), and area under the receiver operating curve (97.1%) for COVID-19 detection from bacterial pneumonia and healthy lung ultrasound data. The ANOVA and Friedman tests found statistically significant performance differences between models for accuracy, balanced accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve. Post-hoc analysis showed statistically significant differences between the performance obtained with the InceptionV3-based model and POCOVID-net, VGG19-, and ResNet50-based models. No statistically significant differences were found in the performance obtained with InceptionV3- and Xception-based models.

conclusionsDeep learning techniques for computer-assisted analysis of lung ultrasound imagery provide a promising avenue for COVID-19 screening and diagnosis. Particularly, we found that the InceptionV3 network provides the most promising predictive results from all AI-based techniques evaluated in this work. InceptionV3- and Xception-based models can be used to further develop a viable computer-assisted screening tool for COVID-19 based on ultrasound imagery.

Indexed as

Deep LearningCOVID-19HumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLungUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID34388187
PMCPMC8363024

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.