4.7 Article

Deep Fractional Max Pooling Neural Network for COVID-19 Recognition

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.726144

关键词

convolutional neural network; fractional max pooling; data augmentation; COVID-19; average pooling; model averaging

资金

  1. Sino-UK Industrial Fund, UK [RP202G0289]
  2. Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), UK [P202PF11]
  3. Royal Society International Exchanges Cost Share Award, UK [RP202G0230]
  4. Medical Research Council Confidence in Concept Award, UK [MC_PC_17171]
  5. Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, UK [RM60G0680]
  6. British Heart Foundation Accelerator Award, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a new model called DFMPNN to diagnose COVID-19 more efficiently, achieving a micro-averaged F1 score of 95.88% through techniques such as fractional max-pooling, multiple-way data augmentation, and model averaging. Experimental results show that DFMPNN outperforms 10 state-of-the-art models in disease diagnosis.
Aim: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a form of disease triggered by a new strain of coronavirus. This paper proposes a novel model termed deep fractional max pooling neural network (DFMPNN) to diagnose COVID-19 more efficiently. Methods: This 12-layer DFMPNN replaces max pooling (MP) and average pooling (AP) in ordinary neural networks with the help of a novel pooling method called fractional max-pooling (FMP). In addition, multiple-way data augmentation (DA) is employed to reduce overfitting. Model averaging (MA) is used to reduce randomness. Results: We ran our algorithm on a four-category dataset that contained COVID-19, community-acquired pneumonia, secondary pulmonary tuberculosis (SPT), and healthy control (HC). The 10 runs on the test set show that the micro-averaged F1 (MAF) score of our DFMPNN is 95.88%. Discussions: This proposed DFMPNN is superior to 10 state-of-the-art models. Besides, FMP outperforms traditional MP, AP, and L2-norm pooling (L2P).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据