Comparative study of Deep Learning Models for Binary Classification on Combined Pulmonary Chest X-ray Dataset

Authors: Shabbir Ahmed Shuvo, Md Aminul Islam, Md. Mozammel Hoque, Rejwan Bin Sulaiman

License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2309.10829v2

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
In this study, the authors conducted a comparative analysis of deep learning models for binary classification on a combined Pulmonary Chest X-ray dataset. The aim was to address the knowledge gap in determining the relative performance of different models when applied to the same dataset. The dataset used in this study combined Shenzhen, China (CH) and Montgomery, USA (MC) data. The researchers trained their model for binary classification using eight prominent deep learning models: DenseNet 121, DenseNet 169, DenseNet 201, EfficientNet b0, EfficientNet lite4, GoogleNet, MobileNet and ResNet18. They ensured that all models followed the same training parameters to maintain a controlled comparison environment. At the end of the study they found distinct differences in performance among the models when applied to the pulmonary chest X-ray image dataset. Specifically DenseNet169 achieved a precision of 89.38 percent and MobileNet achieved a precision of 92.2 percent. To provide more context and expand on their findings, the researchers also conducted an analysis of fusion datasets by combining two datasets from different geographical regions resulting in a larger and more representative dataset for improving generalization and robustness of their analysis. Furthermore they performed a comprehensive comparative performance analysis of the eight deep transfer learning models which provided clinicians and researchers with valuable insights into the effectiveness of these models in tuberculosis diagnosis. The study also presented a clear ranking of the models based on their performance as well as examining reasons behind each model's performance offering guidance for model selection and potential areas of improvement. Overall this research contributes to advancing tuberculosis diagnosis through deep learning models by providing insights into their relative performance and offering recommendations for practical implementation.
AI-generated keywords: Deep Learning Pulmonary Chest X-ray Binary Classification Transfer Learning Tuberculosis Diagnosis

AI-generated Key Points

  • Comparative analysis of deep learning models for binary classification on a combined Pulmonary Chest X-ray dataset
  • Aimed to determine relative performance of different models on the same dataset
  • Dataset combined Shenzhen, China and Montgomery, USA data
  • Trained model using eight prominent deep learning models: DenseNet 121, DenseNet 169, DenseNet 201, EfficientNet b0, EfficientNet lite4, GoogleNet, MobileNet and ResNet18
  • Maintained controlled comparison environment with same training parameters for all models
  • Found distinct differences in performance among the models on pulmonary chest X-ray image dataset
  • DenseNet169 achieved precision of 89.38 percent and MobileNet achieved precision of 92.2 percent
  • Conducted analysis of fusion datasets by combining two datasets from different geographical regions for improved generalization and robustness
  • Comprehensive comparative performance analysis of the eight deep transfer learning models
  • Provides valuable insights into effectiveness of these models in tuberculosis diagnosis for clinicians and researchers
  • Clear ranking of the models based on their performance
  • Examined reasons behind each model's performance and offered guidance for model selection and potential areas of improvement
  • Contributes to advancing tuberculosis diagnosis through deep learning models by providing insights into relative performance and recommendations for practical implementation.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: CNN-based deep learning models for disease detection have become popular recently. We compared the binary classification performance of eight prominent deep learning models: DenseNet 121, DenseNet 169, DenseNet 201, EffecientNet b0, EffecientNet lite4, GoogleNet, MobileNet, and ResNet18 for their binary classification performance on combined Pulmonary Chest Xrays dataset. Despite the widespread application in different fields in medical images, there remains a knowledge gap in determining their relative performance when applied to the same dataset, a gap this study aimed to address. The dataset combined Shenzhen, China (CH) and Montgomery, USA (MC) data. We trained our model for binary classification, calculated different parameters of the mentioned models, and compared them. The models were trained to keep in mind all following the same training parameters to maintain a controlled comparison environment. End of the study, we found a distinct difference in performance among the other models when applied to the pulmonary chest Xray image dataset, where DenseNet169 performed with 89.38 percent and MobileNet with 92.2 percent precision. Keywords: Pulmonary, Deep Learning, Tuberculosis, Disease detection, Xray

Submitted to arXiv on 16 Sep. 2023

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.