ArticleScientific reports2023
Automated COVID-19 detection with convolutional neural networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Modeling of Electric Bicycle Battery Performance: Integrating Real-Time Sensor Data and Machine Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- On leveraging self-supervised learning for accurate HCV genotyping.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of disease affecting gait with a body acceleration-based model using reflected marker data for training and a wearable accelerometer for implementation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper focuses on addressing the urgent need for efficient and accurate automated screening tools for COVID-19 detection. Inspired by existing research efforts, we propose two framework models to tackle this challenge. The first model combines a conventional CNN architecture as a feature extractor with XGBoost as the classifier. The second model utilizes a classical CNN architecture with a Feedforward Neural Network for classification. The key distinction between the two models lies in their classification layers. Bayesian optimization techniques are employed to optimize the hyperparameters of both models, enabling a "cheat-start" to the training process with optimal configurations. To mitigate overfitting, transfer learning techniques such as Dropout and Batch normalization are incorporated. The CovidxCT-2A dataset is used for training, validation, and testing purposes. To establish a benchmark, we compare the performance of our models with state-of-the-art methods reported in the literature. Evaluation metrics including Precision, Recall, Specificity, Accuracy, and F1-score are employed to assess the efficacy of the models. The hybrid model demonstrates impressive results, achieving high precision (98.43%), recall (98.41%), specificity (99.26%), accuracy (99.04%), and F1-score (98.42%). The standalone CNN model exhibits slightly lower but still commendable performance, with precision (98.25%), recall (98.44%), specificity (99.27%), accuracy (98.97%), and F1-score (98.34%). Importantly, both models outperform five other state-of-the-art models in terms of classification accuracy, as demonstrated by the results of this study.
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.