key: cord-0891644-50w5e3zx
authors: Dida, Hedifa; Charif, Fella; Benchabane, Abderrazak
title: Registration of computed tomography images of a lung infected with COVID-19 based in the new meta-heuristic algorithm HPSGWO
date: 2022-03-10
journal: Multimed Tools Appl
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-022-12658-w
sha: abefc5505651a34be4166fb99b5c03bbd117f8ae
doc_id: 891644
cord_uid: 50w5e3zx

Computed tomography (CT) helps the radiologist in the rapid and correct detection of a person infected with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and this by showing the presence of the ground-glass opacity in the lung of with the virus. Tracking the evolution of the spread of the ground-glass opacity (GGO) in the lung of the person infected with the virus needs to study more than one image in different times. The various CT images must be registration to identify the evolution of the ground glass in the lung and to facilitate the study and identification of the virus. Due to the process of registration images is essentially an improvement problem, we present in this paper a new HPSGWO algorithm for registration CT images of a lung infected with the COVID-19. This algorithm is a hybridization of the two algorithms Particle swarm optimization (PSO) and Grey wolf optimizer (GWO). The simulation results obtained after applying the algorithm to the test images show that the proposed approach achieved high-precision and robust registration compared to other methods such as GWO, PSO, Firefly Algorithm (FA), and Crow Searcha Algorithms (CSA).

In the medical field, the radiologist relies on the detection of many diseases on different medical imaging methods, as it provides information that helps him identify early and diagnose accurately. Computed tomography (CT) is one of the methods that has been used to diagnose many tumors, as this method provides information on solid tissue of organs [6] . when a stopping criterion is satisfied [22] . There are many meta-heuristic algorithms that differ according to the way they search for solutions among these methods, we have Particle swarm optimization (PSO) [35] , Grey wolf optimizer (GWO) [16] , Firefly Algorithm (FA) [38] , Crow Searcha Algorithm (CSA) [8] . Despite the success of these algorithms in many optimization processes, their solutions remain relative and do not reach the required optimization.

To achieve better registration, in this paper, we present the HPSGWO algorithm for recording images of lungs infected with COVID-19 using CT methods by maximizing the value of the mutual information. The algorithm HPSGWO is a hybridization of the two algorithms, PSO and GWO, thus combining the advantages of the two algorithms in the optimization process.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The second section explains the related work. The third section presents the proposed method. The third section describes the proposed method (HPSGWO algorithm), and PSO, GWO, FA, and CSA algorithms. In the fourth section, simulation results are presented and a comparison study between algorithms is discussed, and then discussed. In the fifth and final section, a conclusion is drawn form this work.

The field of image analysis is wide and varies according to the method used in image processing, as most of them aim to reduce noise, provide a clearer image, and contains the required amount of information. Several methods have been adopted in the field of image processing, some of which are based on the convolution network [40] , including those based on iterative Structure-adaptive Fuzzy Estimation [11] , as well as based on an artifact suppressed dictionary learning [10] . This work is about medical image registration Especially the CT images of the lung of a person with COVID-19. The main of this work is to obtain a more detailed image with an acceptable amount of information to facilitate the diagnosis of infection with this virus.

Generally, the image registration process is described as aligning two or more images and combining them to the best similarity criterion. This process is an essential pillar in many applications of image analysis in general and medical imaging in particular [19] . Image registration is based on three components: a transformation which relates the target (sensed or moving) image Is and source (reference or fixed) image Ir, a similarity measure S which measures the similarity between target and source image, and an optimization algorithm which determines the optimal transformation parameters as a function of the similarity measure [13] . Figure 1 presents the steps required in the image registration process.

In the image registration process, the sensed image undergoes a series of transformations to correspond the reference image depending on a similarity metric. The process of changing the parameters of the transformation continues until the two images are optimal similar. The optimal transformation parameters T of the two images undergoing the registration process can be obtained by maximizing the similarity metric S, the following equation illustrates this process [29] :

Where (x, y) is the coordinates of the image.

Establishing one-to-one correspondence between pixels or boxels needs to relate the target plane or volume to the reference by means of the transformation T [29] . The transformation model is responsible for determining the type of geometrical transformation to be applied for the registration. The transformation models can be rigid (universal) or non-rigid (flexible). Rigid transformation models are characterized by no distortions or small deformations if any, and the entire image is transformed uniformly, whereas non-rigid models use large and complex deformations [36] . In this paper, our study is limited to applying rigid transformation, which is contains a translations along x and y axes t x , t y , and rotation θ. This transformation is popular because in many common medical images the rigid body constraint leads to a good approximation. Furthermore, it has relatively few parameters to be determined and it can be defined as [5] :

Mutual information of image intensities is a new matching criterion that features robust and completely automatic registration of multi-modal images without prior segmentation [20] . These advantages make the proposed mutual information method suitable for many different applications involving CT images. For two images A and B of individual entropy and joint entropy, the Mutual information between these two images can be calculated as follows:

Where:

Where P A (a) and P A, B (a, b) are the marginal distributions of probability that can be viewed as a combined PDF projection onto the axes corresponding to the intensities in images A and B, respectively [15] .

The optimization is an essential component and very important step in the image registration process. The role of optimization is to search the geometric transformation that is applied to the scene to make it as similar as possible to the model, in other words [13] , find the optimum transformation parameters required for aligning the images. There are several optimization methods that differ according to the algorithms used. According to the nature of the algorithm, the optimization algorithms can be categorized into three categories: deterministic algorithms, stochastic algorithms and hybrid algorithms which is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic algorithms. Figure 2 illustrates the categories of this classification [27] .

In our proposed method is based on the use of meta-heuristic algorithms to record CT images that were taken at different times (Figs. 3 and 4).

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a population-based meta-heuristic optimization method. Was proposed by Eberhart and Kennedy in 1995, which is a stochastic optimization technique that simulates the animal's social behavior when searching for food, including insects, herds, birds and fishes, and is therefore dependent mainly on swarm [34] . The algorithm configuration is related to a group of particles, where each of the particles represents a candidate solution to a problem and has the following three main attributes: the position in the search space X i (t), the current velocity V i (t) and the best position ever found by the particle during the search process X * i t ð Þ [9] . The velocity of each particle is adjusted by the following equations:

Here:

Where X * i t ð Þ is the best position of each particle which represents the private best objective (fitness) value so far obtained, and X * g t ð Þ is the global best particle which denotes the best position among all particles in the population. ω represents the inertia weight which is used to Fig. 2 Block diagram of image registration process maintain the particle, C 1 and C 2 represent cognition learning and social learning factor, respectively, and R 1 , R 2 are the uniformly generated random numbers in the range of [0, 1]. The process of moved each particle by adding speed to the current position is as follows:

Where X i (t + 1) is the new position, and V i (t + 1) indicates the new velocity.

The gray wolf algorithm is an algorithm inspired by the gray wolves' living system in the wild, which belong to a canadian family. These wolves prefer to live in groups, the group size is each averaging between 5 and 15, and follow a strict dominant social hierarchy [32] . Gray wolves are divided into three groups, each of which has a different role to play. Among the set of possible solutions, the best solution appears in alpha wolves. This can be shown by the following equation:

Where X ! and X ! p the grey wolf and target position, respectively, t is the number of iteration and D ! is distance vector calculated as: Here, and C ! are the coefficient vectors. These coefficient vectors are shown in eqs. (11) and (12) , respectively.

Where K ¼ 2−t t T max is decreased from 2 to 0 linearly through the number of iterations, T max is total number of iterations and p ! 1 , p ! 2 are two random vectors between [0, 1]. The alpha is responsible for directed the fishing pattern of the wolves. Beta and Delta are also involved in fishing. Thus, the first three best solutions are chosen to be the hunting wolves, and their current positions can update all wolves' positions. The formulas in this regard are as follows:

After computing the difference vectors D ! α , D ! β , and D ! δ , as well as the updated states for (t + 1), the iteration can be computed as follows:

Where A ! 1 , A ! 2 , and A ! 3 are the random vectors,

Firefly Algorithm (FA) is a randomization-based optimization algorithm to find solutions inspired by the nature of fireflies and their ability to glow [37] . This algorithm is described by by the rhythmic flashes that fireflies send in order to warn of the possibility and the presence of prey or to bring in other fireflies easily. Least brighter fireflies move in the direction of the other brighter fireflies, that is, the greater the distance between the fireflies, the attractiveness decreased between thefireflies, which leads to random movement of the fireflies [1] . Equation 9 illustrates the variation of the firefly's light attractive coefficient β with the distance r between the heifers [2] .

Where β 0 is the attractiveness at zero distance (r = 0) and normally set to 1. And γ is the light absorption coefficient.

The CSA algorithm was inspired from crows behavior in obtaining their food. Crows depend on stealing to obtain their food, as they follow other birds and take food after those birds leave their hiding place [31] . The behavior of the crows prompted researchers to create an algorithm that mimics this behavior, called it crow search algorithm. Equation 3 illustrates the formula in which crows change their position while observing the awareness of other birds [23] :

Where AP t i represents the awareness of the crow j. If the victim bird knows that the crow is following it, he will try to take the crow to a random location. For each crow i, a crow j is selected randomly to update the position of crow i [23] .

Grey wolf optimizer (GWO) and Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithms each have features that determine their importance in overcoming various optimization problems [28, 30] . While each of the aforementioned algorithms has flaws in the way it searches for solutions to a problem.

Despite the advantages of the PSO algorithm, such as the robustness in solving many optimization problems, not to mention the simplicity and ease of implementation, it often falls into the minimum solutions when it is subjected to severe restrictions [30] .

The gray wolf algorithm maintains a balance between exploration and exploitation and often avoids being trapped locally. It is also characterized by speed and accuracy of results. Despite all this, it remains limited compared to PSO in overcoming many problems. This approach was inferred by GWO using wolves 'positions α, β, and δ in determining the solution as shown in Eq. 2 with wolves' position updated on the one hand, and by PSO using gbest, pbest, and inertia (w) as shown in Eq. 7, as it provides him with information about tracking and discovering the best location of particles from another side. The hybrid approach used the orientation characteristic used by GWO with the prior knowledge provided by PSO by gbest, pbest and inertia (w) to obtain an algorithm that has broad ability to overcome the problems of image registration, accuracy in results and speed in performance. This hybrid approach can be described by increasing the GWO performance. Equation 18 shows the positions customized to the wolf:

Here the mean of the best three can be calculated and it represents the the gbest of the proposed algorithm. The pbest and inertia (w) are predicted in the same way as the traditional PSO algorithm. The estimation of the positions of the new GWO algorithm related to the PSO algorithm is shown in the following equation:

Here:

Here, R 1 and R 2 are the random variables are bound between [−1, 1] unlike in PSO, it is limited between [0, 1]. The proposed algorithm initially relies on the features of PSO to define the search area as well as on GWO to provide the best convergence. The HPSGWO algorithm finds the perfect solution with a suitability account for each search agent, updating the current search agent for each search agent. The coefficient vectors and inertia particles will then continue to be updated until the global optimum solution is obtained. Algorithm 1 shows the proposed algorithm:

In this section, we will perform a series of mono and multi-modal images registrations process to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new algorithm HPSGWO. The first stage of this section describes the image dataset we used in the registrations process. In the second stage, the results of the registration processes obtained after applying the proposed algorithm are presented and compared with the results of the PSO, GWO, FA, and CSA algorithms. All results of registration are obtained using the MATLAB R2020, on a computer having an Intel (R) Xeon (R) Silver 4108 GPU @1.80 GHz.

The test images used in this paper were obtained from the famous database "Radiopaedia" https://radiopaedia.org/articles/covid-19-4 , which provides modern CT images of the lungs of people infected with COVID-19 of all ages. Four types of computed tomography images are taken which are considered: The first CT image is denoted to as (CT-I1), the second image is CT-I2, the third image is (CT-I3), and the fourth image is (CT-I4).

Several criteria have been proposed for evaluating image recording with the aim of showing the difference between the performances of different methods. In this paper, the Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), structural similarity (SSIM), and Human perception-based metric Q CB , are used as quantitative evaluation measures to compare different recording algorithms. These criteria are simple and most used to evaluate the performance of various imageprocessing methods, and they are defined in order as follows:

The metric NMI is robust to change overlapping tissue regions, as it relies on a Parzenwindow approach to estimate the probability density function [39] . For images A and B, the NMI is given as follows:

& Structural SImilarity Metric (SSIM)

SSIM basically compares the standard image and the image to be detected from three aspects: Brightness, Contrast, and Structure Similarity [42] .

Where μ g , μ s _ reg , σ g , and σ s _ reg are the local means, standard deviations, and crosscovariance for images I g , I s _ reg . k 1 , k 2 are parameters with small values and L is the maximum pixel value.

By the model of the human visual system, Chen and Blum [12] suggested a human perception-based metric Q CB , which compares the features in the source image with those of the registered image. The measurement can be given as follows:

The first step is to calculate the Q GQM Global Quality Map by:

Where Q AR (i, j) and Q BR (i, j) represent the contrast inQ BR (i, j) formation that was transferred from the source images A and B to the registered image R, respectively. λ A and λ B denote the saliency maps of Q AF and Q BF respectively. Q CB can be calculated based on Q GQM as shown in Eq. 26:

A higher Q CB value indicates that the registered image will retain more contrast information from the source images.

In the experiments, the obtained of floating images by applying the following: translation (t x , t y ) = (7, 7)rotation of θ = 5°to the ground truth image, and similar population size of 25 and a maximum iteration value of 100 iterations to registred each pair of images.

To confirm the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm and to clarify its performance in the image registration process and demonstrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm over the source algorithms, we applied the algorithms PSO and GWO separately on real 2D CT image pairs CT-I1, CT-I2, CT-I3, and CT-I4. These two algorithms have shown good results in registring pairs of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) images in a previous study in [16] . On the other hand, due to the good results achieved by the FA and CSA algorithms in many optimization problems such as [3, 4, 7, 21, 25] respectively, these two algorithms were applied and the results obtained were compared with the results of the proposed algorithm. The algorithms were applied to a pair of "CT-I1" and "CT-I2" images of a lung infected to COVID-19 as a mono-modal, and the two pairs of "CT-I1 and CT-I2", "CT-I3 and CT-I4" as multi-modal.

In the first stage of this experiment we considered the two pairs of CT images as mono-modal ((CT-I1, CT-I1) and (CT-I2, CT-I2)). The simulation results showed that the proposed algorithm HPSGWO is faster and more accurate in mono-modal registration of the two images pairs compared to the PSO, GWO, FA, and CSA algorithms. Tables 1 shows the registration parameters for the SSIM, NMI, and Q CB , values for each pair of images. It clearly shows that the proposed algorithm has found the optimal solutions to the registration process and within a short period on all tests over 20 runs. The maximum SSIM, INM, and Q CB values in the proposed algorithm appear in both registration. Figure 8 shows the percentages of the algorithms used based on SSIM, which further illustrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm for mono-modal registration of the two image pairs. Through Fig. 5 showing the evolution of the algorithms used in this experiment (for mono-modal registration), it can be seen that the proposed algorithm HPSGWO and the FA algorithm converge after 45 and 5 iterations, respectively, for the image pairs ((CT-I1,CT-I1) and (CT-I3,CT-I3)). While other algorithms need more than 60 iterations to converge. Despite the high evaluation values of the proposed method compared to other methods, which indicate better registration results, they converge after a large number of iterations compared to FA, which converge after a very small number of iterations. This is due to the reduction in the search area, and to get closer to the optimal solution to obtain the best results of registration.

The visual quality of different mono-modal image registration methods (HPSGWO, PSO, FA, CSA, and GWO) is presented in two Figs. 6 and 7. these results confirm the good performance of the proposed HPSGWO algorithm, as it contains higher SSIM, INM, and Q CB values, that indicating better mono-modal registration results. The green and magenta color distribution show the information of the source image and sensed image, respectively. The difference between images before registration and Registered image confirms the recording effectiveness of the algorithms in general and the proposed algorithm in particular.

& A-frame has been added to the SSIM Map images to show their borders only, this frame does not belong to the resulting images.

In the second stage of this experiment, we considered the two pairs of CT images as multimodal ((CT-I1, CT-I2) and (CT-I3, CT-I4)). The simulation results showed that the proposed stage. Figure 8 shows the relative percentages of the algorithms used based on SSIM, which further illustrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm for the two multi-modal image pairs registration. Through Fig. 9 showing the evolution of the algorithms used in this experiment, it can be seen that the proposed algorithm HPSGWO and the FA algorithm converge after 45 and 5 iterations, respectively, for the image pairs ((CT-I1,CT-I2) and (CT-I3,CT-I4)) as it happened in mono-modal registration in the first stage. While other algorithms need more than 60 iterations to converge. As is the case in mono-modal registration, despite the high SSIM, INM, and Q CB values shown in the proposed method, they converge after a very large number of iterations compared to the FA algorithm. This is due to the reduction in the search area, and to get closer to the optimal solution to obtain the best results of registration. The visual quality of different multi-modal image registration methods (HPSGWO, PSO, FA, CSA, and GWO) is presented in two Figs. 10 and 11. These results confirm the good performance of the proposed HPSGWO algorithm, as it contains higher SSIM, INM, and Q CB values, that indicating better multi-modal registration results. The green and magenta color distribution show the information of the source image and sensed image, respectively. The difference between images before registration and Registered image confirms the recording effectiveness of the algorithms in general and the proposed algorithm in particular.

& A-frame has been added to the SSIM Map images to show their borders only, this frame does not belong to the resulting images. Information (NMI), Human perception-based metric Q CB and with the available method of registration based in deep learning. The same database used for deep learning-based registration was implemented in [33] . The following table shows the results obtained, to show the good performance of the proposed method. The following table shows the results obtained, that shows the superiority of the proposed method in the registration process (Table 3) .

In this work, we used a new method resulting from the hybridization of two wellknown algorithms PSO and GWO (named HPSGWO) to registered CT images of lung infected with COVID-19 that contain GGO. First, HPSGWO, PSO, GWO, FA, and CSA algorithms were used for mono-modal registration and then used for multi-modal registration of CT images of lung infected with COVID-19. The results obtained showed that the proposed method achieves good recording and is superior to the PSO, GWO, FA, and CSA algorithms in most cases of multi-modal and mono-modal registration of the test images. 

A novel efficient substitution-box design based on firefly algorithm and discrete chaotic map

An improved hybrid firefly algorithm for capacitated vehicle routing problem

An improved fast fuzzy c-means using crow search optimization algorithm for crop identification in agricultural

Optimization of drop ejection frequency in EHD inkjet printing system using an improved

Multi-Modal Medical Image Registration with Full or Partial Data: A Manifold Learning Approach

Fusion of MRI and CT images using guided image filter and image statistics

Nature-Inspired Methods for Metaheuristics Optimization

Studies in computational intelligence -advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms

Based on DPC and PSO

Artifact suppressed dictionary learning for low-dose CT image processing

Structure-adaptive fuzzy estimation for random-valued impulse noise suppression

A new automated quality assessment algorithm for image fusion

A full migration BBO algorithm with enhanced population quality bounds for multimodal biomedical image registration

CT imaging features of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-NCoV)

Medical Image Registration. Biomedical engineering series

Grey Wolf Optimizer for Multimodal Medical Image Registration. 4th Int

Accelerated nonrigid image registration using improved Levenberg-Marquardt method

Slice-to-volume medical image registration: a survey

2-D and 3-D Image Registration

Crow search algorithm: theory, recent advances, and applications

Metaheuristics: outlinesMATLAB Codes and Examples

Sine-cosine crow search algorithm: theory and applications

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): role of chest CT in diagnosis and management

A space transformational crow search algorithm for optimization problems

Clinical Features and Chest CT Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

A review on the cosine modulated filter bank studies using meta-heuristic optimization algorithms

Automata based hybrid PSO-GWO algorithm for secured energy efficient optimal routing in wireless sensor network

Color fundus image registration techniques and applications for automated analysis of diabetic retinopathy progression: a review

A novel hybrid PSO-GWO algorithm for optimization problems

Development and applications of an intelligent crow search algorithm based on opposition based learning

Multi-strategy ensemble grey wolf optimizer and its application to feature selection

An unsupervised convolutional neural network-based algorithm for deformable image registration

Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview

A particle swarm optimization algorithm for mixed-variable optimization problems

A Review of Deformation Models in Medical Image Registration

Yin-Yang firefly algorithm based on dimensionally Cauchy mutation

An improved firefly algorithm for global continuous optimization problems

To Align Multimodal Lumbar Spine Images via Bending Energy Constrained Normalized Mutual Information

Domain progressive 3D residual convolution network to improve low-dose CT imaging

A Comparison of Clinical and Chest CT Findings in Patients With Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infection and Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

Defect Detection of Printing Images on Cans Based on SSIM and Chromatism

Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations