| Literature DB >> 28959000 |
Mahdi Alizadeh1, Omid Haji Maghsoudi1, Kaveh Sharzehi2, Hamid Reza Hemati3, Alireza Kamali Asl3, Alireza Talebpour4.
Abstract
Automatic diagnosis tool helps physicians to evaluate capsule endoscopic examinations faster and more accurate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of an automatic post-processing method for identifying and classifying wireless capsule endoscopic images, and investigate statistical measures to differentiate normal and abnormal images. The proposed technique consists of two main stages, namely, feature extraction and classification. Primarily, 32 features incorporating four statistical measures (contrast, correlation, homogeneity and energy) calculated from co-occurrence metrics were computed. Then, mutual information was used to select features with maximal dependence on the target class and with minimal redundancy between features. Finally, a trained classifier, adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system was implemented to classify endoscopic images into tumor, healthy and unhealthy classes. Classification accuracy of 94.2% was obtained using the proposed pipeline. Such techniques are valuable for accurate detection characterization and interpretation of endoscopic images.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28959000 PMCID: PMC5706434 DOI: 10.7555/JBR.31.20160008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Res ISSN: 1674-8301
Displacement vector of 2D co-occurrence matrices.
| Direction | 0° | 45° | 90° | 135° |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Displacement Vector | (D,0) | (D,D) | (0,D) | (−D,D) |
Final selected features using the mutual information method.
| No | Feature | Channel | Degree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Homogeneity | H | 0 |
| 2 | Energy | S | 0 |
| 3 | Homogeneity | S | 0 |
| 4 | Contrast | H | 45 |
| 5 | Energy | H | 45 |
| 6 | Contrast | S | 90 |
| 7 | Energy | S | 90 |
| 8 | Contrast | S | 135 |
Criteria for defining target class.
| Criteria | Value |
|---|---|
| Normal image | 0.25 |
| Abnormal image with gastric tumor | 0.5 |
| Other types of abnormalities | 0.75 |
Performance measurements for the first classifier.
| Class | Sensitivity | Specificity | Total Classification Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set A (abnormal) | 87.5% | 95.3% | 85% |
| Set B (normal) | 75% | 98.7% | |
| Set C (tumor) | 100% | 86% |
Performance measurements for the second classifier.
| Class | Sensitivity | Specificity | Total Classification Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set A (abnormal) | 98.2% | 93.75% | 94.2% |
| Set B (normal) | 86.36% | 98.7% | |
| Set C (tumor) | 100% | 98% |
An overview of the common available methods reported in literature.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| kNN based on multi scale local binary patterns features[ | 84.5% | 79.33% | 81.92% |
| MLP based on multi scale local binary patterns features[ | 87.16% | 84.33% | 85.75% |
| SVM based on multi scale local binary patterns features[ | 87.99% | 86.00% | 87.00% |
| kNN based on color wavelet covariance features[ | 73.83% | 68.33% | 63.32% |
| MLP based on color wavelet covariance features[ | 74.67% | 71.17% | 72.92% |
| SVM based on color wavelet covariance features[ | 67.00% | 71.67% | 69.33% |
| RBF using N
TU-based features[ | - | - | 91.43% |
| Adaptive fuzzy logic system (AFLS) using histogram based features[ | 92.85% | ||
| Fuzzy inference neural network (FINN) using histogram based features[ | - | - | 88.57% |
| Adaptive fuzzy logic system (AFLS) using N
TU-based features[ | - | - | 95.71% |
| Fuzzy inference neural network (FINN) using N
TU-based features[ | - | - | 94.28% |
| ANFIS1 based on histogram and co-occurrence matrix based texture features in this paper | 85% | 95.00% | 85% |
| ANFIS2 based on histogram and co-occurrence matrix based texture features in this paper | 94.16% | 96.27% | 94.2% |