| Literature DB >> 33286802 |
Ali M Hasan1, Hamid A Jalab2, Rabha W Ibrahim3,4, Farid Meziane5, Ala'a R Al-Shamasneh2, Suzan J Obaiys6.
Abstract
Brain tumor detection at early stages can increase the chances of the patient's recovery after treatment. In the last decade, we have noticed a substantial development in the medical imaging technologies, and they are now becoming an integral part in the diagnosis and treatment processes. In this study, we generalize the concept of entropy difference defined in terms of Marsaglia formula (usually used to describe two different figures, statues, etc.) by using the quantum calculus. Then we employ the result to extend the local binary patterns (LBP) to get the quantum entropy LBP (QELBP). The proposed study consists of two approaches of features extractions of MRI brain scans, namely, the QELBP and the deep learning DL features. The classification of MRI brain scan is improved by exploiting the excellent performance of the QELBP-DL feature extraction of the brain in MRI brain scans. The combining all of the extracted features increase the classification accuracy of long short-term memory network when using it as the brain tumor classifier. The maximum accuracy achieved for classifying a dataset comprising 154 MRI brain scan is 98.80%. The experimental results demonstrate that combining the extracted features improves the performance of MRI brain tumor classification.Entities:
Keywords: MRI classification; deep learning; fractional calculus; quantum calculus; quantum entropy
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286802 PMCID: PMC7597092 DOI: 10.3390/e22091033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Proposed quantum entropy local binary patterns (QELBP)–deep-learning (DL) model.
Figure 2Structure of DL feature extraction.
Elements of the output confusion matrix.
| Actual Class | Predicted Class | |
|---|---|---|
| Abnormal | Normal | |
| Abnormal (positive) | TP | FN |
| Normal (negative) | FP | TN |
Figure 3MRI brain images from the collected dataset.
Figure 4MRI brain images from the collected dataset (a) Original MRI images; (b) enhanced by the Gaussian filter with kernel of (3 × 3); (c) normalized MRI.
Figure 5Training process.
Comparisons of QELBP, DL and the proposed C QELBP–DL methods, respectively using LSTM with the collected dataset.
| Methods | Accuracy 100% | TP 100% | TN 100% | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QELBP | 89.50 | 94 | 85 | 0.8489 |
| DL | 93.50 | 98 | 89 | 0.9259 |
| Proposed QELBP–DL | 98.80 | 99 | 97.80 | 0.9864 |
Comparisons of the proposed QELBP–DL proposed method with other pre-trained networks using the collected brain MRI scans dataset.
| Method | Accuracy 100% | Features Dimensions | TP 100% | TN 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet [ | 92 | 4096 | 92 | 86 |
| GoogleNet [ | 90 | 1000 | 96 | 83 |
| SqueezeNet [ | 94 | 1000 | 97 | 88 |
| Proposed QELBP–DL | 98.80 | 12 | 99 | 97.80 |
Comparisons of the proposed model with other methods using different brain MRI scans datasets.
| Methods | Dataset Used | Accuracy 100% | Sensitivity 100% | Specificity 100% | Precision 100% | TP 100% | TN 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anitha and Murugavalli, 2016 [ | Custom dataset-2 | 96.60 | 88 | 33 | 96 | 96 | 100 |
| Sachdeva et al. 2016 [ | Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India | 91 | x | x | x | x | x |
| Sultan, H et al. 2019 [ | Tianjing Medical University, China | 96.13 | 93 | 97 | 95 | 93 | 97 |
| Badža M et al. 2020 [ | Tianjing Medical University, China | 96.56 | 97 | 96 | 94 | 96 | 95 |
| Raja et al. 2020 [ | BRATS 2015 database | 98.50 | 96 | 99 | 96 | 98 | 96 |
| Proposed | Custom datasets | 98.80 | 98 | 99 | 97 | 99 | 97.8 |