| Literature DB >> 26402795 |
Marjan Mansourvar1, Shahaboddin Shamshirband1, Ram Gopal Raj1, Roshan Gunalan2, Iman Mazinani3.
Abstract
Assessing skeletal age is a subjective and tedious examination process. Hence, automated assessment methods have been developed to replace manual evaluation in medical applications. In this study, a new fully automated method based on content-based image retrieval and using extreme learning machines (ELM) is designed and adapted to assess skeletal maturity. The main novelty of this approach is it overcomes the segmentation problem as suffered by existing systems. The estimation results of ELM models are compared with those of genetic programming (GP) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) models. The experimental results signify improvement in assessment accuracy over GP and ANN, while generalization capability is possible with the ELM approach. Moreover, the results are indicated that the ELM model developed can be used confidently in further work on formulating novel models of skeletal age assessment strategies. According to the experimental results, the new presented method has the capacity to learn many hundreds of times faster than traditional learning methods and it has sufficient overall performance in many aspects. It has conclusively been found that applying ELM is particularly promising as an alternative method for evaluating skeletal age.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26402795 PMCID: PMC4581666 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138493
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CBIR layout in the bone age assessment system.
Fig 2Bone age result displayed with the gender and ethnicity features.
Category numbers of samples used for evaluation.
| Age group | Category | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF | AM | CF | CM | AAF | AAM | HF | HM | |
| 1–6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 7–12 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 13–18 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Ethnicity is denoted by
A: Asian
C: Caucasian
AA: African American
H: Hispanic; and Gender is
F: Female
M: Male
Evaluation of the BAA system based on the comparison with chronological age.
| Asian | Caucasian | African/American | Hispanic | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | |
| System bone age (Mean) | 9.036 | 10.615 | 11.036 | 9.2700 | 8.244 | 11.881 | 10.414 | 8.696 |
| Chronological age (Mean) | 9.102 | 10.983 | 10.695 | 9.390 | 8.188 | 12.023 | 10.266 | 8.003 |
| Number of cases | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 |
Fig 3Scatter plots of actual and estimated bone age values using (a) ELM, (b) GP and (c) ANN.
Fig 4Comparison of error rate for the soft computing models.
User-defined parameters for the ELM, ANN and GP models.
| ELM | ANN | GP | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of layers | 3 | Number of layers | 3 | ||
| Neurons | Input: 3; Hidden: 3, 6, 10; Output: 1 | Neurons | Input: 3; Hidden: 3, 6, 10; Output: 1 | Neurons | Output: 1 |
| Number of iteration | 1000 | Population size | 512 | ||
| Activation function | Sigmoid Function | Function set | +,-,×,÷,√, ln, | ||
| Learning rule | ELM for SLFNs | Learning rule | Back propagation | Head size | 5–9 |
| Chromosomes | 20–30 | ||||
| Number of genes | 2–3 | ||||
| Mutation rate | 91.46 | ||||
| Crossover rate | 30.56 | ||||
| Inversion rate | 108.53 | ||||
Comparison of performance statistics of the ELM, ANN and GP bone age assessment models.
| ELM | ANN | GP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | R2 | r | RMSE | R2 | r | RMSE | R2 | r |
| 0.221247 | 0.9981 | 0.999025 | 0.241835 | 0.9975 | 0.998773 | 0.255281 | 0.9973 | 0.998669 |