| Literature DB >> 25873991 |
Mingzhu Zhao1, Lei Chen1, Linjie Bian1, Jianhua Zhang1, Chunyan Yao2, Jianwei Zhang2.
Abstract
Feature analysis and classification detection of abnormal cells from images for pathological analysis are an important issue for the realization of computer assisted disease diagnosis. This paper studies a method for cervical squamous epithelial cells. Based on cervical cytological classification standard and expert diagnostic experience, expressive descriptors are extracted according to morphology, color, and texture features of cervical scales epithelial cells. Further, quantificational descriptors related to cytopathology are derived as well, including morphological difference degree, cell hyperkeratosis, and deeply stained degree. The relationship between quantified value and pathological feature can be established by these descriptors. Finally, an effective method is proposed for detecting abnormal cells based on feature quantification. Integrated with clinical experience, the method can realize fast abnormal cell detection and preliminary cell classification.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25873991 PMCID: PMC4385601 DOI: 10.1155/2015/941680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Cell categories. Roughly four categories: normal, low-grade lesion, high-grade lesion, and cancer [9].
Figure 2Representation of cervical squamous epithelial cells in different categories of TBS. (a) Normal. (b) ASC-US. (c, d) LISL. (e, f) HISL. (g, h) SCC.
Figure 3TBS grading of cervical squamous epithelial cells [11].
Figure 4Definition of regions in cell images.
Figure 5Representation of regions. (a) Cell regions. (b) Nucleus regions. (c) Binary map of cell regions with red points as the cell centroids. (d) Binary map of nucleus regions with red points as the nucleus centroids. (e, f) Region color labeling and the regions in (f) have the same color as (e) have owner-member relationship.
Figure 6The shape difference descriptor on nucleus. (a, b, c) all are individual cells stored in cell image set. (d, e, f) Corresponding binary maps with red centroid marks. (g, h, i) Point sets and curve fitting.
Figure 7The detection results of individual cells.
Preliminary classification outcome of abnormal cells.
| Lesion grading | Outcome of detection and classification | Actual classification | Actual category: LSIL | Actual category: HSIL | Actual category: SCC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misclassified category: | Misclassified category: | Misclassified category: | Misclassified category: SCC | Misclassified category: | Misclassified category: | |||
| LSIL | 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 17–22 | — | — | 5 | — | — | — |
| HSIL | 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, | 1–16 | 30 | — | — | — | — | — |
| SCC | 2, 4, 9, 10, 14, 23, 24, | 23–29 | — | — | — | 2, 4, 9, 10, 14 | — | 26 |
| Clustering | Distance of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: the size of nucleus | ||||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV | V | VI |
| Number of clustering centers | 33 | 8 | 31 | 20 | 27 | 23 |
| Samples in the class | 5, 6, 19, 22 | 1, 13 | 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, 21, 28 | 2, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 26, 32 | 3, 24, 25, 34 | 29, 30 |
| Scope of feature values | (1.1, 1.4) | (1.7, 1.9) | (2.2, 2.9) | (3.4, 3.9) | (4.0, 4.5) | (5.1, 6.2) |
| Feature thresholds | ∇ | 2 < ∇ | ∇ | |||
| Clustering | Distance of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: N/C | ||||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV | V | VI |
| Number of clustering centers | 17 | 5 | 8 | 26 | 12 | 25 |
| Samples in the class | 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 31, 33 | 15, 32 | 4, 6, 27, 30 | 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16 | 13, 24, 29 | 7, 10, 23, 28, 34 |
| Scope of feature values | (1.7, 4.7) | (8.3, 9.3) | (11.9, 15.2) | (16.5, 19.9) | (21.6, 25.5) | (26.5, 31.1) |
| Feature thresholds |
|
| ||||
| Clustering | Distance of samples | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: circularity | ||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV |
| Number of clustering centers | 5 | 2 | 24 | 19 |
| Samples in the class | 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28 | 17, 29, 30, 32 | 7, 10, 14, 25, 27, 33, 34 | 23, 31 |
| Scope of feature values | [0.8, 0.9] | [0.8, 0.8] | [0.8, 0.8] | [0.5, 0.7] |
| Feature thresholds |
|
| ||
| Clustering | Distance of samples | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: compactness | ||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV |
| Number of clustering centers | 33 | 29 | 23 | 26 |
| Samples in the class | 4, 7, 15, 19, 30, 31, 32 | 1, 6, 17, 28 | 8, 11, 14, 18, 20, 27, 34 | 2, 3, 12, 22, 24 |
| Scope of feature values | [0.5, 0.7] | [0.8, 0.8] | [0.8, 0.9] | [0.9, 0.9] |
| Feature thresholds |
|
| ||
| Clustering | Distance of samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: the | |||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV | V |
| Number of clustering centers | 34 | 14 | 19 | 33 | 7 |
| Samples in the class | 1, 2, 10, 24, 25, 23 | 9, 13, 17, 28, 29, 31, 32 | 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 27, 30 | 5, 21, 22, 26 | 15 |
| Scope of feature values | [28,55] | [62,84] | [91,111] | [133,154] | [172,176] |
| Feature thresholds |
| 90 < | 120 < |
| |
| Clustering | Distance of samples | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: the | ||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV |
| Number of clustering centers | 31 | 2 | 33 | 3 |
| Samples in the class | 18, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32 | 1, 10, 21, 22, 28, 34 | 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 20, 29 | 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 30 |
| Scope of feature values | [41,66] | [70,83] | [95,120] | [126,203] |
| Feature thresholds |
| 70 < |
| |
| Clustering | Distance of samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion: the | |||||
| Categories | I | II | III | IV | V |
| Number of clustering centers | 18 | 25 | 14 | 20 | 19 |
| Samples in the class | 23, 24, 27 | 2, 10, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 34 | 1, 5 | 4, 9, 13, 16, 26, 29, 33 | 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 30 |
| Scope of feature values | [87,110] | [120,140] | [148,167] | [185,199] | [207,252] |
| Feature thresholds |
| 120 < |
| ||