METHODS: Such activity is recorded through various neuroimaging techniques like fMRI, EEG, MEG etc. EEG signals based localization is termed as EEG source localization. The source localization problem is defined by two complementary problems; the forward problem and the inverse problem. The forward problem involves the modeling how the electromagnetic sources cause measurement in sensor space, while the inverse problem refers to the estimation of the sources (causes) from observed data (consequences). Usually, this inverse problem is ill-posed. In other words, there are many solutions to the inverse problem that explains the same data. This ill-posed problem can be finessed by using prior information within a Bayesian framework. This research work discusses source reconstruction for EEG data using a Bayesian framework. In particular, MSP, LORETA and MNE are compared.
RESULTS: The results are compared in terms of variational free energy approximation to model evidence and in terms of variance accounted for in the sensor space. The results are taken for real time EEG data and synthetically generated EEG data at an SNR level of 10dB.
CONCLUSION: In brief, it was seen that MSP has the highest evidence and lowest localization error when compared to classical models. Furthermore, the plausibility and consistency of the source reconstruction speaks to the ability of MSP technique to localize active brain sources.
METHODS: Overall, 612 patients (306 COVID-19 and 306 non-COVID-19 pneumonia) were recruited. Twenty radiological features were extracted from CT images to evaluate the pattern, location, and distribution of lesions of patients in both groups. All significant CT features were fed in five classifiers namely decision tree, K-nearest neighbor, naïve Bayes, support vector machine, and ensemble to evaluate the best performing CAD system in classifying COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases.
RESULTS: Location and distribution pattern of involvement, number of the lesion, ground-glass opacity (GGO) and crazy-paving, consolidation, reticular, bronchial wall thickening, nodule, air bronchogram, cavity, pleural effusion, pleural thickening, and lymphadenopathy are the significant features to classify COVID-19 from non-COVID-19 groups. Our proposed CAD system obtained the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.965, 93.54%, 90.32%, and 91.94%, respectively, using ensemble (COVIDiag) classifier.
CONCLUSIONS: This study proposed a COVIDiag model obtained promising results using CT radiological routine features. It can be considered an adjunct tool by the radiologists during the current COVID-19 pandemic to make an accurate diagnosis.
KEY POINTS: • Location and distribution of involvement, number of lesions, GGO and crazy-paving, consolidation, reticular, bronchial wall thickening, nodule, air bronchogram, cavity, pleural effusion, pleural thickening, and lymphadenopathy are the significant features between COVID-19 from non-COVID-19 groups. • The proposed CAD system, COVIDiag, could diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia cases with an AUC of 0.965 (sensitivity = 93.54%; specificity = 90.32%; and accuracy = 91.94%). • The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy obtained by radiologist diagnosis are 0.879, 87.10%, 88.71%, and 87.90%, respectively.