| Literature DB >> 27722173 |
Tao Zhou1, Huiling Lu1, Junjie Zhang1, Hongbin Shi2.
Abstract
In order to improve the detection accuracy of pulmonary nodules in CT image, considering two problems of pulmonary nodules detection model, including unreasonable feature structure and nontightness of feature representation, a pulmonary nodules detection algorithm is proposed based on SVM and CT image feature-level fusion with rough sets. Firstly, CT images of pulmonary nodule are analyzed, and 42-dimensional feature components are extracted, including six new 3-dimensional features proposed by this paper and others 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional features. Secondly, these features are reduced for five times with rough set based on feature-level fusion. Thirdly, a grid optimization model is used to optimize the kernel function of support vector machine (SVM), which is used as a classifier to identify pulmonary nodules. Finally, lung CT images of 70 patients with pulmonary nodules are collected as the original samples, which are used to verify the effectiveness and stability of the proposed model by four groups' comparative experiments. The experimental results show that the effectiveness and stability of the proposed model based on rough set feature-level fusion are improved in some degrees.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27722173 PMCID: PMC5046100 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8052436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Three-dimensional character sketch.
ROI feature set.
| Feature type | Feature vectors | Dimensionality |
|---|---|---|
| Shape features (fs) | Perimeter, area, volume, roundness, rectangularity, length, Euler's number, ESV, SCDSTD, ERCLD, Hu moment | 18 |
|
| ||
| Intensity features (fi) | Mean intensity, intensity standard variance, maximum-minimum intensity difference value of variance, skewness, kurtosis, intensity gradient (from inside to outside), LDM, LDD | 8 |
|
| ||
| Texture features (ft) | Tamura texture features (contrast, direction, roughness), GLCM (angular second moment, moment of inertia, torque deficit, sum mean, variance, sum variance, difference variance, entropy, sum entropy, differential entropy, information measure, correlation coefficient, maximum correlation coefficient) | 16 |
Figure 2Optimal hyper plane.
Figure 3Flow chart of pulmonary nodule detection model.
Figure 4Pulmonary nodule segmentation results.
Feature values of pulmonary nodular areas and nonnodular areas.
| Shape features (fs) | Intensity features (fi) | Texture features (ft) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nodular areas | Nonnodular areas | Nodular areas | Nonnodular areas | Nodular areas | Nonnodular areas |
| 95 | 78 | 59.06 | 91.0987 | 8.3104 | 5.4016 |
| 159 | 128 | 14.06 | 4.4872 | 12.041 | 12.5216 |
| 284 | 178 | 0.5956 | −0.39568 | 0.4303 | 0.0067 |
| 0.6517 | 0.211 | 2.7348 | 1.8669 | 0.7709 | 0.7275 |
| 0.6961 | 2.1587 | 55.1865 | 14.3481 | 0.7169 | 0.9865 |
| 0.3529 | 0.7778 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.8059 | 5.3894 |
| 0 | 1 | 13.9598 | 20.6044 | 0.1942 | 0.0487 |
| 0.3186 | 1.0295 | 729.905 | 354.6389 | 0.7708 | 0.7273 |
| 0.0686 | 1.0197 | 0.8059 | 5.3498 | ||
| 0.0042 | 0.0458 | 3.5042 | 5.0971 | ||
| 0.0021 | 0.0295 | 0.6514 | 0.8453 | ||
| 0.0013 | 0.0268 | 0.0971 | 0.6143 | ||
| 0.0005 | 0.0011 | 4.4033 | 82.1862 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 0.0691 | 5.0061 | ||
| 14 | 9 | −0.5785 | −0.4245 | ||
| 0.5356 | 0.5571 | 2.307 | 3.2239 | ||
| 0.3072 | 0.501788 | ||||
| 0.1738 | 0.207122 | ||||
Figure 5Pulmonary nodule area and the pulmonary nodules boxplot. “+” refers to upper and lower bounders of ESV value and SCDSTD value.
Feature reduction based on rough sets.
| Feature subset | Reduction results | Dimensionality |
|---|---|---|
| RS1 | fs4, fs16, fs17, fs18, fi2, fi4, fi6, fi7, fi8, ft2, ft4, ft5, ft6, ft7, ft8, ft9, ft10, ft11, ft13, ft14, ft15, ft16 | 21 |
| RS2 | fs4, fs9, fs16, fs18, fi1, fi2, fi5, ft2, ft5, ft6, ft8, ft9, ft10, ft11, ft12, ft13, ft15 | 17 |
| RS3 | fs9, fs17, fs18, fi1, fi2, fi5, fi7, fi8, ft2, ft6, ft7, ft8, ft9, ft10, ft11, ft12, ft14, ft15, ft16 | 19 |
| RS4 | fs9, fs16, fs18, fi1, fi2, fi5, fi7, fi8, ft5, ft6, ft7, ft8, ft9, ft10, ft11, ft12, ft14, ft15, ft16 | 19 |
| RS5 | fs9, fs16, fs17, fs18, fi1, fi2, fi4, fi5, fi7, fi8, ft2, ft5, ft6, ft7, ft8, ft9, ft10, ft12, ft15, ft16 | 20 |
Statistics of effectiveness before and after rough set reduction.
| Serial number | Accuracy (%) | Sensibility (%) | Specificity (%) | Processing time (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before reduction | 1 | 96.42 | 92.86 | 100 | 1.0610 |
| 2 | 91.96 | 83.93 | 100 | 0.6170 | |
| 3 | 95.54 | 100 | 91.07 | 0.5490 | |
| 4 | 89.28 | 100 | 78.57 | 0.5630 | |
| 5 | 95.54 | 91.07 | 100 | 0.5470 | |
| 6 | 98.21 | 96.43 | 100 | 0.5460 | |
| 7 | 94.64 | 89.29 | 100 | 0.5460 | |
| 8 | 95.53 | 91.07 | 100 | 0.5460 | |
| 9 | 91.96 | 83.93 | 100 | 0.5460 | |
| 10 | 97.32 | 100 | 96.64 | 0.5300 | |
|
| |||||
| Mean | 94.64 | 92.86 | 96.43 | 0.6051 | |
|
| |||||
| After reduction (Rs1) | 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.9370 |
| 2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.4360 | |
| 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.3870 | |
| 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.4210 | |
| 5 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.4210 | |
| 6 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.3900 | |
| 7 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.4060 | |
| 8 | 91.67 | 100 | 83.33 | 0.4060 | |
| 9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.3740 | |
| 10 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.3930 | |
|
| |||||
| Mean | 99.17 | 100 | 98.33 | 0.4571 | |
|
| |||||
| Increase after reduction | 4.53 | 7.14 | 1.9 | 0.148 | |
Effectiveness of rough set reduction subsets.
| Subset | Average accuracy (%) | Average sensitivity (%) | Average specificity (%) | Processing time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS1 | 99.17 | 100 | 98.33 | 0.4571 |
| RS2 | 97.5 | 96.67 | 98.33 | 0.4650 |
| RS3 | 99.17 | 100 | 98.33 | 0.4656 |
| RS4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.4731 |
| RS5 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 0.4850 |
|
| ||||
| Mean | 98.83 | 99 | 98.66 | 0.4672 |
Stability statistics of rough set reduction subsets.
| Training set/testing set | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Running time (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before fusion | 50/20 | 97.35 | 94.71 | 100 | 0.4873 |
| 40/30 | 96.53 | 93.08 | 98.32 | 0.3846 | |
| 35/35 | 95.83 | 92.39 | 97.79 | 0.4254 | |
| 30/40 | 96.16 | 95.58 | 96.74 | 0.3560 | |
| 20/50 | 94.88 | 94.63 | 95.86 | 0.4236 | |
|
| |||||
| Mean | 96.15 | 94.08 | 97.742 | 0.4154 | |
|
| |||||
| After fusion (Rs1) | 50/20 | 99.71 | 99.41 | 100 | 0.2684 |
| 40/30 | 98.96 | 99.58 | 98.46 | 0.2568 | |
| 35/35 | 98.65 | 99.23 | 98.08 | 0.2382 | |
| 30/40 | 98.37 | 98.60 | 98.14 | 0.2646 | |
| 20/50 | 98.25 | 97.67 | 98.84 | 0.2636 | |
|
| |||||
| Mean | 98.79 | 98.84 | 98.70 | 0.2583 | |
Figure 6Comparative results of feature subsets before and after rough set reduction.
Classification performance of rough set reduction subset.
| Subset | Average accuracy (%) | Average sensitivity (%) | Average specificity (%) | Running time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS1 | 99.17 | 100 | 98.33 | 0.2583 |
| RS2 | 97.5 | 96.67 | 98.33 | 0.2870 |
| RS3 | 99.17 | 100 | 98.33 | 0.2560 |
| RS4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.2531 |
| RS5 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 0.2656 |
|
| ||||
| Mean | 98.834 | 99 | 98.66 | 0.2620 |
Classification performance of feature reduction based on PCA.
| Serial number | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | 10 × running time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 91.67 | 83.33 | 100 | 0.9970 |
| 2 | 96.74 | 93.48 | 100 | 0.4830 |
| 3 | 96.74 | 93.48 | 100 | 0.4880 |
| 4 | 98.91 | 100 | 97.83 | 0.4950 |
| 5 | 93.48 | 86.96 | 100 | 0.4950 |
| 6 | 96.74 | 100 | 93.48 | 0.5140 |
| 7 | 96.74 | 100 | 93.48 | 0.5120 |
| 8 | 94.57 | 89.13 | 100 | 0.4890 |
| 9 | 97.83 | 95.65 | 100 | 0.4990 |
| 10 | 95.65 | 93.48 | 97.83 | 0.5180 |
|
| ||||
| Mean | 95.91 | 93.55 | 98.26 | 0.5490 |
Figure 7Comparison of two feature-level fusion models.
Comparison of the performance of different lung nodule detection methods.
| Author | Database | Nodule numbers | Accuracy (%) | FP/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santos et al. [ | L | 260 | 88.4 | 1.17 |
| Magalhães Barros Netto et al. [ | L | 48 | 90.65 | 0.138 |
| Ye et al. [ | Pr | 220 | 90.2 | 8.2 |
| Tan et al. [ | L | 172 | 87.5 | 4 |
| Cascio et al. [ | L | 148 | 97 | 6.1 |
| Our method | Pr | 70 | 99.17 | 0.47 |