The Evaluation of Deep Neural Networks and X-Ray as a Practical Alternative for Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19

  1. Mohamed Elgendi
  2. Rich Fletcher
  3. Newton Howard
  4. Carlo Menon
  5. Rabab Ward

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

High-resolution computed tomography radiology is a critical tool in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 infection; however, in smaller clinics around the world, there is a shortage of radiologists available to analyze these images. In this paper, we compare the performance of 16 available deep learning algorithms to help identify COVID19. We utilize an already existing diagnostic technology (X-ray) and an already existing neural network (ResNet-50) to diagnose COVID-19. Our approach eliminates the extra time and resources needed to develop new technology and associated algorithm, thus aiding the front-line in the race against the COVID-19 pandemic. Results show that ResNet-50 is the optimal pretrained neural network for the detection of COVID-19, using three different cross-validation ratios, based on training time, accuracy, and network size. We also present a custom visualization of the results that can be used to highlight important visual biomarkers of the disease and disease progression.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099481: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All the experiments in our work were carried out in MATLAB 2020a on a PC with the following configuration: 3.70 GHz Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6500U CPU 2.59 GHz, and 16.00 GB RAM.
    MATLAB
    suggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099481v1 on medRxiv