| Literature DB >> 25332717 |
Karthik Kalyan1, Binal Jakhia1, Ramachandra Dattatraya Lele2, Mukund Joshi3, Abhay Chowdhary1.
Abstract
The preliminary study presented within this paper shows a comparative study of various texture features extracted from liver ultrasonic images by employing Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), a type of artificial neural network, to study the presence of disease conditions. An ultrasound (US) image shows echo-texture patterns, which defines the organ characteristics. Ultrasound images of liver disease conditions such as "fatty liver," "cirrhosis," and "hepatomegaly" produce distinctive echo patterns. However, various ultrasound imaging artifacts and speckle noise make these echo-texture patterns difficult to identify and often hard to distinguish visually. Here, based on the extracted features from the ultrasonic images, we employed an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of disease conditions in liver and finding of the best classifier that distinguishes between abnormal and normal conditions of the liver. Comparison of the overall performance of all the feature classifiers concluded that "mixed feature set" is the best feature set. It showed an excellent rate of accuracy for the training data set. The gray level run length matrix (GLRLM) feature shows better results when the network was tested against unknown data.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25332717 PMCID: PMC4181903 DOI: 10.1155/2014/708279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Bioinformatics ISSN: 1687-8027
Figure 1Ultrasound image of (a) normal liver, (b) fatty liver, (c) cirrhosis, and (d) hepatomegaly.
Figure 2Image classification workflow utilising ANNs.
Figure 3Workflow of image preprocessing step, (a) original ultrasound image, (b) image after cropping operation, (c) image after edge detection, and (d) image after background subtraction.
Features corresponding to intensity histogram.
|
|
Features of GLCM.
| S/number | Name | Equation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mean ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Standard deviations ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.1 | Autocorrelation ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.2 | Contrast ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.3 | Correlation ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.4 | Cluster prominence ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.5 | Cluster shade ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.6 | Dissimilarity ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.7 | Energy ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.8 | Entropy ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.9 | Homogenecity ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.10 | Maximum probability ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.11 | Sum of squares ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.12 | Sum average ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.13 | Sum variances ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.14 | Sum entropy ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.15 | Difference variance ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.16 | Difference entropy ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.17 | Information measures of correlation-1 ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.19 | Inverse difference ( | Same as homogenecity |
|
| ||
| 2.20 | Inverse difference normalized [INN] ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2.21 | Inverse difference moment normalized ( |
|
Features of GLRLM.
|
|
Features corresponding to invariant moments.
| S/number | Name | Equation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Raw moments ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Central moments ( |
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Invariant moments |
|
Features selected by WEKA software.
| S/number | Feature category | Number of features before feature selection | Number of features after feature selection | Selected features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Intensity histogram | 6 | 4/6 | Variance, Skewness, Kurtosis, and Entropy |
|
| ||||
| 2 | GLCM | 22 | 11/22 | Contrast, correlation-1, correlation-2, cluster shade, homogeneity, maximum probability, sum of squares: variance, sum variance, difference entropy, information measure of correlation-1, and information measure of correlation-2 |
|
| ||||
| 3 | GLRLM | 11 | 6/11 | Short run emphasis, gray-level nonuniformity, low gray-level run emphasis, high gray-level run emphasis, short run high gray-level emphasis, and long run high gray-level emphasis |
|
| ||||
| 4 | Invariant moments | 7 | 4/7 |
|
|
| ||||
| 5 | Mixed features | 47 | 9/47 | Homogeneity, sum of average, difference variance, information measure of correlation-1, information measure of correlation-2, inverse difference normalized, short run emphasis, short run high gray-level emphasis, and length |
Figure 4Workflow of implementation of artificial neural network.
Figure 5Confusion matrix and ROC plot of GLRLM training data.
Figure 6Confusion matrix and ROC plot of GLRLM testing data.
Figure 7Confusion matrix and ROC plot of mixed features training data.
Figure 8Confusion matrix and ROC plot of mixed features testing data.
Performance analysis of all features.
| FEATURE | Training (%) | Testing (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | TPR | TNR | FNR | Accuracy | TPR | TNR | FNR | |
| Intensity histogram | 80 | 73.3 | 86.7 | 26.7 | 77.5 | 75 | 80 | 25 |
| GLCM | 86.7 | 80 | 93.3 | 20 | 90 | 80 | 100 | 20 |
| GLRLM | 90 | 86.7 | 93 | 13.3 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 5 |
| Invariant moments | 65 | 86.7 | 43.3 | 13.3 | 72.5 | 90 | 55 | 10 |
| Mixed feature | 91.7 | 93.3 | 90 | 6.7 | 92.5 | 95 | 90 | 5 |
Figure 9(a) Overall performance analysis of training dataset and (b) overall performance analysis of testing dataset.