ArticleArtificial intelligence in medicine2021
Hybrid COVID-19 segmentation and recognition framework (HMB-HCF) using deep learning and genetic algorithms.
Article in Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel rotation and scale-invariant deep learning framework leveraging conical transformers for precise differentiation between meningioma and solitary fibrous tumor.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- A concentrated machine learning-based classification system for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) diagnosis using fundus images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Disease Recognition in X-ray Images with Doctor Consultation-Inspired Model.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Techniques to Diagnose Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- A generic optimization and learning framework for Parkinson disease via speech and handwritten records.Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing · 2022Article
- A complete framework for accurate recognition and prognosis of COVID-19 patients based on deep transfer learning and feature classification approach.Artificial intelligence review · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 (Coronavirus) went through a rapid escalation until it became a pandemic disease. The normal and manual medical infection discovery may take few days and therefore computer science engineers can share in the development of the automatic diagnosis for fast detection of that disease. The study suggests a hybrid COVID-19 framework (named HMB-HCF) based on deep learning (DL), genetic algorithm (GA), weighted sum (WS), and majority voting principles in nine phases. Its segmentation phase suggests a lung segmentation algorithm using X-Ray images (named HMB-LSAXI) for extracting lungs. Its classification phase is built from a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture using an abstractly-designed CNN (named HMB1-COVID19) and transfer learning (TL) pre-trained models (VGG16, VGG19, ResNet50, ResNet101, Xception, DenseNet121, DenseNet169, MobileNet, and MobileNetV2). The hybrid CNN architecture is used for learning, classification, and parameters optimization while GA is used to optimize the hyperparameters. This hybrid working mechanism is combined in an overall algorithm named HMB-DLGA. The study experiments implemented the WS approach to evaluate the models' performance using the loss, accuracy, F1-score, precision, recall, and area under curve (AUC) metrics with different pre-defined ratios. A collected, combined, and unified X-Ray dataset from 8 different public datasets was used alongside the regularization, dropout, and data augmentation techniques to limit the overall overfitting. The applied experiments reported state-of-the-art metrics. VGG16 reported 100% WS metric (i.e., 0.0097, 99.78%, 0.9984, 99.89%, 99.78%, and 0.9996 for the loss, accuracy, F1, precision, recall, and AUC respectively) concerning the highest WS. It also reported a 99.92% WS metric (i.e., 0.0099, 99.84%, 0.9984, 99.84%, 99.84%, and 0.9996 for the loss, accuracy, F1, precision, recall, and AUC respectively) concerning the last reported WS result. HMB-HCF was validated on 13 different public datasets to verify its generalization. The best-achieved metrics were compared with 13 related studies. These extensive experiments' target was the applicability verification and generalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.