ArticleBiomedicines2022
Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Models Used in Impact Analysis of Coronavirus Chest X-ray Imaging.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact analysis of deep learning models for COVID-19-infected X-ray images is an extremely challenging task. Every model has unique capabilities that can provide suitable solutions for some given problem. The prescribed work analyzes various deep learning models that are used for capturing the chest X-ray images. Their performance-defining factors, such as accuracy, f1-score, training and the validation loss, are tested with the support of the training dataset. These deep learning models are multi-layered architectures. These parameters fluctuate based on the behavior of these layers, learning rate, training efficiency, or over-fitting of models. This may in turn introduce sudden changes in the values of training accuracy, testing accuracy, loss or validation loss, f1-score, etc. Some models produce linear responses with respect to the training and testing data, such as Xception, but most of the models provide a variation of these parameters either in the accuracy or the loss functions. The prescribed work performs detailed experimental analysis of deep learning image neural network models and compares them with the above said parameters with detailed analysis of these parameters with their responses regarding accuracy and loss functions. This work also analyses the suitability of these model based on the various parameters, such as the accuracy and loss functions to various applications. This prescribed work also lists out various challenges on the implementation and experimentation of these models. Solutions are provided for enhancing the performance of these deep learning models. The deep learning models that are used in the prescribed work are Resnet, VGG16, Resnet with VGG, Inception V3, Xception with transfer learning, and CNN. The model is trained with more than 1500 images of the chest-X-ray data and tested with around 132 samples of the X-ray image dataset. The prescribed work analyzes the accuracy, f1-score, recall, and precision of these models and analyzes these parameters. It also measures parameters such as training accuracy, testing accuracy, loss, and validation loss. Each epoch of every model is recorded to measure the changes in these parameters during the experimental analysis. The prescribed work provides insight for future research through various challenges and research findings with future directions.
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.