An Open IoHT-based Deep Learning Framework
An Open IoHT-based Deep Learning Framework
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSAC.2020.3020598, IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications
JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, AUGUST XXXX 1
0733-8716 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 02,2020 at 12:47:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSAC.2020.3020598, IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications
JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, AUGUST XXXX 2
considered databases. The top row shows the original images ResNet50
InceptionV3
60.0/84.0/78.0/84.0/82.0/82.0
86.0/86.0/80.0/82.0/86.0/86.0
37.5/80.4/72.2/81.0/80.1/80.1
84.5/84.5/76.3/78.3/84.5/84.5
0.01/12.23/0.01/6.79/0.02/0.02
0.01/2.40/0.01/7.29/0.03/0.03
0.01/0.06/0.03/3.73/0.02/0.02
0.02/0.04/0.02/3.92/0.02/0.02
Xception 80.0/84.0/76.0/82.0/86.0/86.0 71.5/82.3/71.1/79.9/84.7/84.7 0.01/1.52/0.01/7.27/0.03/0.03 0.01/0.04/0.02/3.78/0.02/0.02
and the bottom row the segmented images. InceptionResNetV2
DenseNet121
78.0/86.0/74.0/78.0/86.0/86.0
62.0/88.0/86.0/90.0/92.0/90.0
69.3/82.2/66.4/72.7/82.6/82.6
41.4/86.5/83.7/88.9/91.8/89.5
0.01/4.01/0.01/7.08/0.02/0.02
0.01/0.47/0.01/6.82/0.01/0.02
0.01/0.05/0.02/3.73/0.02/0.02
0.01/0.01/0.03/3.69/0.02/0.02
DenseNet201 68.0/92.0/94.0/92.0/92.0/92.0 51.5/91.6/93.2/90.9/91.6/91.6 0.01/1.01/0.01/7.11/0.02/0.02 0.01/0.01/0.03/3.78/0.02/0.02
DenseNet169 70.0/90.0/86.0/84.0/90.0/90.0 56.8/89.2/85.5/81.7/89.6/89.5 0.01/1.25/0.01/7.11/0.02/0.02 0.02/0.02/0.02/3.78/0.02/0.02
NASNetLarge 60.0/76.0/70.0/72.0/76.0/76.0 37.5/72.6/65.9/66.4/73.5/73.5 0.01/3.71/0.01/7.01/0.04/0.05 0.01/0.05/0.04/3.71/0.02/0.02
X. RESULTS AND D ISCUSSION NASNetMobile 80.0/84.0/76.0/84.0/84.0/84.0 78.4/82.5/73.6/82.3/81.9/81.9 0.01/1.63/0.01/6.97/0.02/0.02 0.01/0.03/0.02/3.72/0.02/0.02
In all tests, Accuracy (Acc) and F1-Score (F1S) metrics were TABLE IV: The best results of the proposed system for all the
used for the combinations of all CNN architectures with all databases considered.
classifiers, seeking to evaluate the performance of the Database Extractor / Classifier Acc (%) F1S (%) Processing Time (s)
framework. In addition to the metrics listed, the training and
test times of the classifiers are also presented.
The 12 (twelve) CNN architectures used in this work as
extractors were: VGG16, VGG19, MobileNet, ResNet50,
For the CVA database the system obtained 100% in accuracy
InceptionV3, Xception, InceptionResNetV2, DenseNet121,
and F1-Score when the kNN and SVM (RBF) classifiers were
DenseNet201, DenseNet169, NASNetLarge and NASNetMo-
used in conjunction with all the CNN architectures. The
bile, and the 6 (six) algorithms used as classifiers were:
training times of Bayes with VGG16, VGG19, MobileNet,
Bayesian Classifier (Bayes) / Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP)
InceptionV3, Xception, InceptionResNetV2, DenseNet121,
/ k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) / Random Forest (RF) / Support
DenseNet201, DenseNet169 and NASNetMobile and kNN in
Vector Machine with Linear kernel: SVM (Linear) / Support
association with VGG16, VGG19 and DenseNet169 were the
Vector Machine with RBF kernel: SVM (RBF), with the results
fastest taking 0.1s. The classification times of Bayes were also
arranged in this order in Tables I, II and III.
the fastest in association with all CNN architectures, taking
In the classification processes, Bayesian classifier operated
only 0.2s.
with the Gaussian probability density function. The hyperpa-
The results for the lung nodule classifications showed 89.1%
rameter k from the kNN classifier was chosen through a grid
of accuracy with SMV (RFB) and MLP in combination with
search, testing the odd values from 1 to 11. Random Forest
InceptionV3 and Xception, respectively. The highest score
training process used 3000 estimators. MLP carried out its
obtained for F1-Score was 85.8% by combining SVM (RFB)
training using the Levenberg-Marquardt method and neurons
and InceptionV3. While SVM (RFB) and SVM (Linear) scored
ranging from 2 to 1000 in the hidden layer. SVM used linear
85.5% when associated with Xception. The best times for clas-
and RBF kernels and hyper parameters C and γ with 2−5, 2−4,
sification and test were also obtained by Bayes in association
2−3, ...,215 and 2−15, 2−14, ...,23 values, respectively.
with all CNN architectures, and was less than 0.1s.
The LINDA framework executes all the combinations of
The skin database results for DenseNet201 in combination
extractors and classifiers and chooses the best result for each
with k-Nearest Neighbor were 94.0% for accuracy and 93.2%
project. Table I shows the combination of extractor and
for the F1-Score. MobileNet obtained 90.0% accuracy when
classifier that represents the best result for a specific database,
associated with anyone of the system classifiers and the SVM
using accuracy and F1-Score as the criteria, in this order. If
(Linear) scored more than 88.0% for the F1-Score when
these two criteria are equal, then the next criterion to be
combined to DenseNet121, DenseNet169 or VGG16. The
compared is the total time, the sum of the training and test times.
fastest processing time was obtained when MobileNet was
TABLE I: Results of accuracy (Acc), F1-Score (F1S), training combined with Bayes and was less than 0.01s. The best results
and test times for CVA database. for each database are presented in the Table IV.
Extractor Acc (%) F1S (%) Training Time (s) Test Time (s)
XI. C ONCLUSION
This work proposed the development of a collaborative
social network to aid in medical diagnoses. The aim was to
make better use of machine learning technologies for those who
are already knowledgeable in the field, as well as making it
possible for people with no knowledge in the areas of
computational intelligence, mathematical learning and
convolutional neural networks to use these resources in a
simple and systematic way. The integration of these
technologies with a framework that harnesses the collaborative
potential can generate a large knowledge base for each specific
problem and foster collaborative problem solving.
At the end of the work there is a significant gain provided by
the tool that enables users to carry out a proof of concept, using
deep learning and other advanced computer-based techniques,
by including their databases and configurations. Moreover,
Fig. 5: Comparison of the results of collaboration with the they can integrate their data with other collaborators / users of
AVC and Lung Nodule bases. the social network. Thus, at the end of the process, the users
have evaluated their hypothesis, and at the same time have a
In order to evaluate the gains through collaboration, the ready-to-use product.
development group was divided into three teams with distinct The usability of the system was well evaluated by 87% of the
development areas, and each to carry out the image processing users who responded to the questionnaire. Furthermore, the
based on the available bases. The objective here was not to integration of the social network with the application, which
achieve greater accuracy, but to verify how much collaboration
uses the concepts of deep machine learning, allowed the use of
would lead to improved results.
artificial intelligence methods in a collaborative and centralized
In the first test the AVC base was divided into three parts,
way. In addition to allowing the interchange of various users in
with 2 (two) teams with 47 samples from each base and 1 (one)
with 46 from each. When the procedures were carried out a project, examples were added and the developed tool was
individually, the accuracies obtained were 81.2%, 87.7% and used in a collaborative way.
78.9%. When the two teams with the most samples shared their Finally, the accuracy of the results, which were already good
bases with each other, the accuracy increased to 93.6%, which with the simple use of the existing algorithms, was reinforced.
represented a gain of approximately 15.27% over the worst They were improved by more than 22% when the image
result, however, the processing time increased. Accuracy is databases were enlarged through collaboration provided by the
considered to be of greater importance than variations in social network. It is also worth mentioning that, in addition to
processing time, especially when such variations do not even the databases of medical images cited here, the tool was applied
reach one second (1s). to other types of image databases, such as industrial processes
A second test was then carried out with the pulmonary and evaluation of equipment. The results here were also good,
nodule base, following the same methodology as the previous and accuracy gains of more than 15%, were obtained with the
test, of dividing the group into 3 (three) teams. The individual tool, but were not presented in more detail because they were
accuracy results obtained were 65.2%, 73.4 and 69.9%. Again not the focus of this work. However they also reinforce the
on sharing the bases provided by the proposed solution, the best benefits of using social networks in this context.
result of combining two of the two bases rose to 80.1%, which As future works, we intend to analyze other databases
represented an accuracy gain of 22.85% over the worst result. focused on the medical field, such as cardiac image processing,
The results of the lung nodule and AVC databases can be seen in order to detect and/or classify cardiovascular diseases. An
in Figure 5. integration of the proposals presented in [37], [38] and [39],
The last test performed with the health-related bases was initially, would be very useful for the growth and, consequently,
with melanoma, but because of the smaller number of samples evolution of the platform, making it more comprehensive and
it was only divided into 2 (two) parts not 3 (three). The results robust. Future works will also address aspects related to data
obtained in relation to accuracy, for the individual processing transport optimization, which may compromise the platform
was 88.4% and 90.1%, and there was an accuracy gain of 6.33% integration with some devices. In addition, every system will
when using the whole base, thus reaching 94.0%. These results undergo an interface evaluation in order to be simple to use by
verify the gain that collaborative work can give, bringing professionals without much computer knowledge and be
benefits both to those who use the solution for diagnosis, by adapted for use by people with disabilities.
obtaining more accurate results, and for those who work with
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
image processing, and are then able to use larger study bases to
test their algorithms. The authors acknowledge the sponsorship from the FUN-
CAP, CAPES and CNPq (via grants no. 304315/2017-6 and