| Literature DB >> 28050555 |
Zhen Qi1, Li-Ping Tu1, Jing-Bo Chen2, Xiao-Juan Hu3, Jia-Tuo Xu1, Zhi-Feng Zhang1.
Abstract
Background and Goal. The application of digital image processing techniques and machine learning methods in tongue image classification in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been widely studied nowadays. However, it is difficult for the outcomes to generalize because of lack of color reproducibility and image standardization. Our study aims at the exploration of tongue colors classification with a standardized tongue image acquisition process and color correction. Methods. Three traditional Chinese medical experts are chosen to identify the selected tongue pictures taken by the TDA-1 tongue imaging device in TIFF format through ICC profile correction. Then we compare the mean value of L*a*b* of different tongue colors and evaluate the effect of the tongue color classification by machine learning methods. Results. The L*a*b* values of the five tongue colors are statistically different. Random forest method has a better performance than SVM in classification. SMOTE algorithm can increase classification accuracy by solving the imbalance of the varied color samples. Conclusions. At the premise of standardized tongue acquisition and color reproduction, preliminary objectification of tongue color classification in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is feasible.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28050555 PMCID: PMC5168476 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3510807
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Structure chart of the TDA-1 tongue imaging device. Note: 1: telescopic cylinder, 2: removable collecting ring, 3: hand shank, 4: control panel, 5: Camera power, 6: camera button, 7: USB interface, 8: zoom button, 9: playback button, 10: OK button, 11: four-way navigation buttons, 12: MENU button, 13: SCENE button, 14: external power switch, and 15: external power connector.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4L a b color space distribution for varied tongue colors (before color correction).
Figure 5L a b color space distribution for varied tongue colors (after color correction).
Comparison for the different tongue color's L , a , and b value ().
| Group | Number ( |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Light red | 478 | 53.31 ± 5.90▲★ | 20.63 ± 3.08▲ | 7.6 ± 3.93★ |
| Pale | 45 | 56.18 ± 6.06●★ | 16.93 ± 1.75●★ | 8.69 ± 3.48★ |
| Crimson | 35 | 48.07 ± 6.12●▲■ | 21.08 ± 3.14▲ | 2.83 ± 3.65●▲ |
| Red | 107 | 48.43 ± 6.57●▲■ | 24.21 ± 3.43●▲★■ | 5.32 ± 4.14●▲★■ |
| purplish | 63 | 52.46 ± 6.53★ | 16.47 ± 2.67●★ | −1.39 ± 4.22●▲★ |
●Compared with light red tongue p < 0.05.
★Compared with crimson tongue p < 0.05.
■Compared with purplish tongue p < 0.05.
▲Compared with pale tongue p < 0.05.
Compared with red tongue p < 0.05.
Figure 6Distribution of respective average tongue colors in a b plane color space. Note: (1) a value: purplish tongue < pale tongue < light red tongue < crimson tongue < red tongue, which indicates that the red components are decreasing. (2) b value: purplish tongue < crimson tongue < red tongue < light red tongue < pale tongue, which indicates that the blue components are decreasing, while the yellow component is increasing.
Comparison of classification accuracy.
| Classification accuracy (%) | samples | LibSVM | Random forest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before sample amplification | 728 | 74.59 | 78.81 |
| After sample amplification | 2390 | 79.83 | 84.94 |
Classification results of LibSVM before amplification.
| Pale | Light red | Crimson | Red | Purplish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pale |
| 30 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Light red | 6 |
| 0 | 15 | 7 |
| Crimson | 0 | 20 |
| 11 | 2 |
| Red | 0 | 57 | 3 |
| 0 |
| Purplish | 1 | 29 | 2 | 1 |
|
Classification results of LibSVM after amplification.
| Pale | Light red | Crimson | Red | Purplish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pale |
| 21 | 1 | 3 | 9 |
| Light red | 75 |
| 26 | 46 | 47 |
| Crimson | 0 | 7 |
| 56 | 11 |
| Red | 0 | 21 | 113 |
| 7 |
| Purplish | 8 | 16 | 10 | 5 |
|
Classification results of Random forest before amplification.
| Pale | Light red | Crimson | Red | Purplish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pale |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Light red | 12 |
| 3 | 28 | 15 |
| Crimson | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | 2 |
| Red | 0 | 35 | 7 |
| 3 |
| Purplish | 1 | 23 | 2 | 2 |
|
Classification results of Random forest after amplification.
| Pale | Light red | Crimson | Red | Purplish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pale |
| 30 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Light red | 41 |
| 21 | 43 | 35 |
| Crimson | 0 | 13 |
| 46 | 11 |
| Red | 0 | 28 | 45 |
| 6 |
| Purplish | 4 | 18 | 6 | 4 |
|
Classification accuracy of different tongue colors (%).
| Amplification | LibSVM | Random forest | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO | YES | NO | YES | |
| Pale | 31.1 | 92.9 | 71.1 | 91.8 |
| Light red | 94.1 | 59.4 | 87.9 | 70.7 |
| Crimson | 5.7 | 84.5 | 68.6 | 85.3 |
| Red | 43.9 | 70.5 | 57.9 | 83.5 |
| Purplish | 47.6 | 91.8 | 55.5 | 93.3 |
Auc for different machine learning methods.
| Auc | LibSVM | Random forest |
|---|---|---|
| Before amplification | 0.69 | 0.89 |
| After amplification | 0.87 | 0.98 |