ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022
COVID-19 Classification from Chest X-Ray Images: A Framework of Deep Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Radiomics and Deep Learning Models for Disease Detection in Chest Radiography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Deep learning approaches for classification tasks in medical X-ray, MRI, and ultrasound images: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Fusion-Extracted Features by Deep Networks for Improved COVID-19 Classification with Chest X-ray Radiography.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Automatic Intelligent System Using Medical of Things for Multiple Sclerosis Detection.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Article
- DDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predicting Breast Cancer Leveraging Supervised Machine Learning Techniques.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 classification using chest X-ray images based on fusion-assisted deep Bayesian optimization and Grad-CAM visualization.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- A Novel CNN pooling layer for breast cancer segmentation and classification from thermograms.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 detection and classification using chest X-ray images is a current hot research topic based on the important application known as medical image analysis. To halt the spread of COVID-19, it is critical to identify the infection as soon as possible. Due to time constraints and the expertise of radiologists, manually diagnosing this infection from chest X-ray images is a difficult and time-consuming process. Artificial intelligence techniques have had a significant impact on medical image analysis and have also introduced several techniques for COVID-19 diagnosis. Deep learning and explainable AI have shown significant popularity among AL techniques for COVID-19 detection and classification. In this work, we propose a deep learning and explainable AI technique for the diagnosis and classification of COVID-19 using chest X-ray images. Initially, a hybrid contrast enhancement technique is proposed and applied to the original images that are later utilized for the training of two modified deep learning models. The deep transfer learning concept is selected for the training of pretrained modified models that are later employed for feature extraction. Features of both deep models are fused using improved canonical correlation analysis that is further optimized using a hybrid algorithm named Whale-Elephant Herding. Through this algorithm, the best features are selected and classified using an extreme learning machine (ELM). Moreover, the modified deep models are utilized for Grad-CAM visualization. The experimental process was conducted on three publicly available datasets and achieved accuracies of 99.1, 98.2, and 96.7%, respectively. Moreover, the ablation study was performed and showed that the proposed accuracy is better than the other methods.
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.