| Literature DB >> 32668793 |
Chiranji Lal Chowdhary1, Mohit Mittal2, Kumaresan P1, P A Pattanaik3, Zbigniew Marszalek4.
Abstract
The herpesvirus, polyomavirus, papillomavirus, and retrovirus families are associated with breast cancer. More effort is needed to assess the role of these viruses in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer cases in women. The aim of this paper is to propose an efficient segmentation and classification system in the Mammography Image Analysis Society (MIAS) images of medical images. Segmentation became challenging for medical images because they are not illuminated in the correct way. The role of segmentation is essential in concern with detecting syndromes in human. This research work is on the segmentation of medical images based on intuitionistic possibilistic fuzzy c-mean (IPFCM) clustering. Intuitionist fuzzy c-mean (IFCM) and possibilistic fuzzy c-mean (PFCM) algorithms are hybridised to deal with problems of fuzzy c-mean. The introduced clustering methodology, in this article, retains the positive points of PFCM which helps to overcome the problem of the coincident clusters, thus the noise and less sensitivity to the outlier. The IPFCM improves the fundamentals of fuzzy c-mean by using intuitionist fuzzy sets. For the clustering of mammogram images for breast cancer detector of abnormal images, IPFCM technique has been applied. The proposed method has been compared with other available fuzzy clustering methods to prove the efficacy of the proposed approach. We compared support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), rough set data analysis (RSDA) and Fuzzy-SVM classification algorithms for achieving an optimal classification result. The outcomes of the studies show that the proposed approach is highly effective with clustering and also with classification of breast cancer. The performance average segmentation accuracy for MIAS images with different noise level 5%, 7% and 9% of IPFCM is 91.25%, 87.50% and 85.30% accordingly. The average classification accuracy rates of the methods (Otsu, Fuzzy c-mean, IFCM, PFCM and IPFCM) for Fuzzy-SVM are 79.69%, 92.19%, 93.13%, 95.00%, and 98.85%, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Mammography Image Analysis Society (MIAS) dataset; breast cancer; intuitionistic possibilistic fuzzy c-mean; machine learning; segmentation; support vector machine; virus
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32668793 PMCID: PMC7411903 DOI: 10.3390/s20143903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A simple block diagram for breast cancer detection steps.
Figure 2Classification Task.
Features for Segmentation.
| Features | Explanation |
|---|---|
|
Area | Number of pixels in boundary area of ROI |
| Perimeter | Number of pixels on boundary of ROI. |
| Circularity | Number of pixels in boundary area of ROI. When there is a circular shape, circularity has a value of zero. By assuming |
| Shape factor | Number of pixels on boundary of ROI. The count of burr around tumors will show the feature that is, region-of-interest as |
| Normalization radial length | |
| Mean-value of normalization based radial length |
|
| . Standard deviation value |
|
| . Entropy value | |
| The normalization value of central position shift | |
| Gradient | the gray value alteration among the boundary pixel and the 10 |
Features for Classifications.
| Features | Equations |
|---|---|
| mean of the intensity |
|
| Standard deviation |
|
| Smoothness |
|
| Skewness |
|
| Uniformity |
|
| Entropy |
|
| Kurtosis |
|
A Sample Decision Tree.
| Body pain | Cold | Vomiting | Fever | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image-1 | High | Low | Yes | Yes |
| Image-2 | Low | Low | No | Yes |
| Image-3 | High | Low | Yes | No |
| Image-4 | Low | Low | No | No |
Figure 3Schematic of the proposed method.
Figure 4(left) Selected Input Image (right) Smoothened Image.
Figure 5Average segmentation accuracy for Mammography Image Analysis Society (MIAS) images with different noise level chart.
Average segmentation accuracy with different noise level.
| Noise Level (in %) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Segmentation Methods ↓ | 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Otsu | 0.8375 | 0.8156 | 0.7969 |
| FCM | 0.8187 | 0.8531 | 0.8163 |
| Intuitionistic FCM | 0.8656 | 0.85 | 0.8125 |
| Possibilistic FCM | 0.8781 | 0.8625 | 0.8188 |
|
|
|
|
|
Average computation time for various techniques in seconds.
| Otsu | FCM | IFCM | PFCM | IPFCM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.72 | 0.65 | 1.25 | 1.40 | 2.26 |
Figure 6Average computation time for various techniques chart.
Classification accuracy (Average) for five segmentation methods.
| Classification (All Features) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Segmentation | SVM | Decision Tree | RSDA | Fuzzy SVM |
| Otsu | 70.32 | 66.88 | 72.81 | 79.69 |
| FCM | 82.19 | 86.25 | 89.63 | 92.69 |
| Intuitionistic FCM | 87.19 | 81.25 | 96.13 | 93.13 |
| Possibilistic FCM | 86.25 | 82.19 | 92.5 | 95.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 7Comparative Classification average accuracy Chart.
Assessment Measures.
| Evaluation Criterion | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sensitivity | The “Sensitivity” criteria is constructed on the positive circumstances of found results. The measurements are element of the perceived positive circumstances and the actual positive circumstances. |
| Specificity | The “Specificity” criteria is constructed on the negative circumstances of found results. The measurements are element of the perceived negative circumstances and the actual negative circumstances. |
| Accuracy | The “Accuracy” criteria is considered on the accuracy of found results. This criteria is the best common indicator which contributes the precision of forecast results. |
| PPV | “Positive Predictive Value” is approximately all the circumstances which calculate the decorously sensed positive circumstances concluded all sensed positive circumstances. |
| NPV | “Negative Predictive Value” is approximately totally the circumstances of conniving as the correctly noticed negative cases concluded totally detected negative circumstances. |
| MCC | One more operational accuracy evaluation display of machine learning methods is “Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient”. In the MCC, there is a comparison between the negative sample numbers and positive sample number led to finding unbalanced. The MCC compromises a virtuous evaluation ended the altogether accuracy. |
Performances Assessment for intuitionistic possibilistic fuzzy c-mean (IPFCM).
| Evaluation | Classification (All Features) |
|---|---|
| Fuzzy SVM | |
| Sensitivity | 0.99 |
| Specificity | 0.25 |
| Accuracy | 0.98 |
| PPV | 0.99 |
| NPV | 0.50 |
| MCC | 0.34 |
Figure 8Performances Assessment for IPFCM.
Comparative results between the proposed work and the other related work.
| Methodology ↓ | Sensitivity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Crow Search Optimization based Intuitionistic Fuzzy Clustering [ | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| Intuitionistic Fuzzy Rough Hybrid Technique [ | 0.97 | 0.98 |
| Convolutional Network Method for Classifying
Screening Mammograms [ | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| Deep Neural Network with Support Value (DNNS) [ | 0.97 | 0.97 |
|
|
|
|