| Literature DB >> 32509260 |
Farrukh Khan1,2, Muhammad Adnan Khan1,3, Sagheer Abbas1, Atifa Athar4, Shahan Yamin Siddiqui1,5, Abdul Hannan Khan1,5, Muhammad Anwaar Saeed6, Muhammad Hussain1,2.
Abstract
The developing countries are still starving for the betterment of health sector. The disease commonly found among the women is breast cancer, and past researches have proven results that if the cancer is detected at a very early stage, the chances to overcome the disease are higher than the disease treated or detected at a later stage. This article proposed cloud-based intelligent BCP-T1F-SVM with 2 variations/models like BCP-T1F and BCP-SVM. The proposed BCP-T1F-SVM system has employed two main soft computing algorithms. The proposed BCP-T1F-SVM expert system specifically defines the stage and the type of cancer a person is suffering from. Expert system will elaborate the grievous stages of the cancer, to which extent a patient has suffered. The proposed BCP-SVM gives the higher precision of the proposed breast cancer detection model. In the limelight of breast cancer, the proposed BCP-T1F-SVM expert system gives out the higher precision rate. The proposed BCP-T1F expert system is being employed in the diagnosis of breast cancer at an initial stage. Taking different stages of cancer into account, breast cancer is being dealt by BCP-T1F expert system. The calculations and the evaluation done in this research have revealed that BCP-SVM is better than BCP-T1F. The BCP-T1F concludes out the 96.56 percentage accuracy, whereas the BCP-SVM gives accuracy of 97.06 percentage. The above unleashed research is wrapped up with the conclusion that BCP-SVM is better than the BCP-T1F. The opinions have been recommended by the medical expertise of Sheikh Zayed Hospital Lahore, Pakistan, and Cavan General Hospital, Lisdaran, Cavan, Ireland.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32509260 PMCID: PMC7254089 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8017496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Proposed intelligent breast cancer prediction model for BCP-T1F-SVM expert system.
Figure 2Proposed BCP-T1F expert system methodology.
Input and output variables membership functions used in the proposed BCP-T1F expert system.
| Sr. number | I/P parameters | Mathematics of membership function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Swelling( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Skin irritation( |
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Breast pain ( |
|
|
| ||
| 4 | Redness( |
|
|
| ||
| 5 | Family inheritance, Breast cancer( |
|
|
| ||
| 6 | Nipple retraction ( |
|
|
| ||
| 7 | Diagnosis infection ( |
|
Input and output variables membership functions used in the proposed BCP-T1F expert system.
| Sr. number | I/P parameters | Mathematics of membership function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ultrasound ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Mammography ( |
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Detection of breast imaging reporting and database system score ( |
|
Input and output variables membership functions used in the proposed BCP-T1F expert system.
| Sr. number | I/P parameters | Mathematics of membership function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Biopsy gold standard for severity ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Biopsy gold standard for type ( |
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Diagnosis of breast cancer severity ( |
|
|
| ||
| 4 | Diagnosis of breast cancer type ( |
|
Input and output variables membership functions used in the proposed BCP-T1F expert system.
| Sr. number | I/P parameters | Mathematics of membership function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Computed tomography (CT) ( |
|
|
| ||
| 2 | Magnetic resonance imaging ( |
|
|
| ||
| 3 | Positron emission tomography ( |
|
|
| ||
| 4 | Diagnosis of breast cancer stage ( |
|
Lookup table for layer 4 for BCP-T1F expert system.
| Rules | MRI | CT | PET | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NT | N1 | SHB | Severe infection |
| 2 | NT | N2 | SHB | |
| 3 | NT | N3 | SHB | |
| 4 | NT | N1 | BEN | Stage 0 |
| 5 | NT | N2 | BEN | |
| 6 | LS | N1 | BEN | Stage 1 |
| 7 | LS | N2 | BEN | |
| 8 | LS | N2 | SHB | Stage 2 |
| 9 | LS | N3 | SHB | |
| 10 | HS | N1 | BEN | Stage 3 |
| 11 | HS | N3 | BEN | |
| 12 | VHS | N2 | BEN | Stage 4 |
| 13 | VHS | N3 | SHB | |
| 14 | HS | N1 | SHB | |
| 15 | HS | N3 | SHB |
Figure 3(a) Rule surface for PET and MRI tumor size. (b) Rule surface for ultrasound and mammography. (c) Rule surface for CT (nodes) and MRI tumor size. (d) Rule surface for biopsy gold (type) and biopsy gold (severity).
Figure 4Lookup diagram for proposed BCP-T1F expert system.
Figure 5Proposed BCP-SVM expert system methodology.
Figure 6Precision chart of proposed BCP-T1F.
Training of the proposed BCP-SVM system model during the prediction of breast cancer.
| Proposed BCP-SVM system model (70% of sample data in training) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of samples ( | Result (output) ( | ||
| Input | Expected output ( |
|
|
|
| 248 | 2 | |
|
| 5 | 144 | |
Validation of the proposed BCP-SVM system model during the prediction of breast cancer.
| Proposed BCP-SVM system model (30% of sample data in validation) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of samples ( | Result (output) ( | ||
| Input | Expected output ( |
|
|
|
| 106 | 1 | |
|
| 4 | 59 | |
Performance evaluation of proposed BCP-SVM system model in validation and training using different statistical measures.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Miss rate (%) | False positive value | False negative value | Likelihood ratio positive | Likelihood ratio negative | Positive prediction value | Negative prediction value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | (0.9863) 98.63% | (0.9802) 98.02% | (0.9825) 98.25% | 1.75 | (0.0198) 1.98% | (0.0137) 1.37% | 49.81 | 0.0139 | (0.9664) 96.64% | (0.992) 99.2% |
| Validation | (0.9833) 98.33% | (0.9636) 96.36% | (0.9706) 97.06% | 2.94 | (0.0364) 3.64% | (0.0167) 1.67% | 27.01 | 0.0173 | (0.9365) 93.65% | (0.9906) 99.06% |
Comparison results of the proposed BCP-T1F and BCP-SVM system with literature.
| Literature | Training | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | Miss rate (%) | |
| ANN [ | 91.10 | 8.9 |
| BCP ANN [ | 92.10 | 7.90 |
| ANN [ | 94 | 6.0 |
| ANN-ELM [ | 96.40 | 3.6 |
| ANN [ | 91.1 | 8.9 |
| Proposed BCP-T1F | 96.56 | 3.44 |
| Proposed BCP-SVM | 97.06 | 2.94 |
Figure 7Comparisons with previous methods.