No abstract

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over ∼165 million people worldwide causing Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and has killed ∼3.4 million people. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown to benefit in the biomedical image such as X-ray/Computed Tomography in diagnosis of ARDS, but there are limited AI-based systematic reviews (aiSR). The purpose of this study is to understand the Risk-of-Bias (RoB) in a non-randomized AI Manuscript

Computer Tomography (CT) is currently being adapted for visualization of COVID-19 lung damage. Manual classification and characterization of COVID-19 may be biased depending on the expert's opinion. Artificial Intelligence has recently penetrated COVID-19, especially deep learning paradigms. There are nine kinds of classification systems in this study, namely one deep learning-based CNN, five kinds of transfer learning (TL) systems namely VGG16, DenseNet121, DenseNet169, DenseNet201 and MobileNet, three kinds of machine-learning (ML) systems, namely artificial neural network (ANN), decision tree (DT), and random forest (RF) that have been designed for classification of COVID-19 segmented CT lung against Controls. Three kinds of characterization systems were developed namely (a) Block imaging for COVID-19 severity index (CSI); (b) Bispectrum analysis; and (c) Block Entropy. A cohort of Italian patients with 30 controls (990 slices) and 30 COVID-19 patients (705 slices) was used to test the performance of three types of classifiers. Using K10 protocol (90% training and 10% testing), the best accuracy and AUC was for DCNN and RF pairs were 99.41 ± 5.12%, 0.991 (p < 0.0001), and 99.41 ± 0.62%, 0.988 (p < 0.0001), respectively, followed by other ML and TL classifiers. We show that diagnostics odds ratio (DOR) was higher for DL compared to ML, and both, Bispecturm and Block Entropy shows higher values for COVID-19 patients. CSI shows an association with Ground Glass Opacities (0.9146, p < 0.0001). Our hypothesis holds true that deep learning shows superior performance compared to machine learning models. Block imaging is a powerful novel approach for pinpointing COVID-19 severity and is clinically validated.

Background COVID-19 pandemic has currently no vaccines. Thus, the only feasible solution for prevention relies on the detection of COVID-19-positive cases through quick and accurate testing. Since artificial intelligence (AI) offers the powerful mechanism to automatically extract the tissue features and characterise the disease, we therefore hypothesise that AI-based strategies can provide quick detection and classification, especially for radiological computed tomography (CT) lung scans. Methodology Six models, two traditional machine learning (ML)-based (k-NN and RF), two transfer learning (TL)-based (VGG19 and InceptionV3), and the last two were our custom-designed deep learning (DL) models (CNN and iCNN), were developed for classification between COVID pneumonia (CoP) and non-COVID pneumonia (NCoP). K10 cross-validation (90% training: 10% testing) protocol on an Italian cohort of 100 CoP and 30 NCoP patients was used for performance evaluation and bispectrum analysis for CT lung characterisation. Results Using K10 protocol, our results showed the accuracy in the order of DL > TL > ML, ranging the six accuracies for k-NN, RF, VGG19, IV3, CNN, iCNN as 74.58 ± 2.44%, 96.84 ± 2.6, 94.84 ± 2.85%, 99.53 ± 0.75%, 99.53 ± 1.05%, and 99.69 ± 0.66%, respectively. The corresponding AUCs were 0.74, 0.94, 0.96, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99 (p-values < 0.0001), respectively. Our Bispectrum-based characterisation system suggested CoP can be separated against NCoP using AI models. COVID risk severity stratification also showed a high correlation of 0.7270 ( p < 0.0001) with clinical scores such as ground-glass opacities (GGO), further validating our AI models. Conclusions We prove our hypothesis by demonstrating that all the six AI models successfully classified CoP against NCoP due to the strong presence of contrasting features such as ground-glass opacities (GGO), consolidations, and pleural effusion in CoP patients. Further, our online system takes < 2 s for inference. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11548-021-02317-0.

No abstract