Literature DB >> 33309994

Comparison of segmentation-free and segmentation-dependent computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses on a public mammography dataset.

Rebecca Sawyer Lee1, Jared A Dunnmon2, Ann He3, Siyi Tang4, Christopher Ré3, Daniel L Rubin5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare machine learning methods for classifying mass lesions on mammography images that use predefined image features computed over lesion segmentations to those that leverage segmentation-free representation learning on a standard, public evaluation dataset.
METHODS: We apply several classification algorithms to the public Curated Breast Imaging Subset of the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (CBIS-DDSM), in which each image contains a mass lesion. Segmentation-free representation learning techniques for classifying lesions as benign or malignant include both a Bag-of-Visual-Words (BoVW) method and a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). We compare classification performance of these techniques to that obtained using two different segmentation-dependent approaches from the literature that rely on specific combinations of end classifiers (e.g. linear discriminant analysis, neural networks) and predefined features computed over the lesion segmentation (e.g. spiculation measure, morphological characteristics, intensity metrics).
RESULTS: We report area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AZ) values for malignancy classification on CBIS-DDSM for each technique. We find average AZ values of 0.73 for a segmentation-free BoVW method, 0.86 for a segmentation-free CNN method, 0.75 for a segmentation-dependent linear discriminant analysis of Rubber-Band Straightening Transform features, and 0.58 for a hybrid rule-based neural network classification using a small number of hand-designed features.
CONCLUSIONS: We find that malignancy classification performance on the CBIS-DDSM dataset using segmentation-free BoVW features is comparable to that of the best segmentation-dependent methods we study, but also observe that a common segmentation-free CNN model substantially and significantly outperforms each of these (p < 0.05). These results reinforce recent findings suggesting that representation learning techniques such as BoVW and CNNs are advantageous for mammogram analysis because they do not require lesion segmentation, the quality and specific characteristics of which can vary substantially across datasets. We further observe that segmentation-dependent methods achieve performance levels on CBIS-DDSM inferior to those achieved on the original evaluation datasets reported in the literature. Each of these findings reinforces the need for standardization of datasets, segmentation techniques, and model implementations in performance assessments of automated classifiers for medical imaging.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer assisted diagnosis; Deep learning; Mammography; Segmentation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33309994      PMCID: PMC7987253          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103656

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Inform        ISSN: 1532-0464            Impact factor:   6.317


  38 in total

1.  Boundary modelling and shape analysis methods for classification of mammographic masses.

Authors:  R M Rangayyan; N R Mudigonda; J E Desautels
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  John Arevalo; Fabio A González; Raúl Ramos-Pollán; Jose L Oliveira; Miguel Angel Guevara Lopez
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms.

Authors:  Z Huo; M L Giger; C J Vyborny; D E Wolverton; R A Schmidt; K Doi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs.

Authors:  Varun Gulshan; Lily Peng; Marc Coram; Martin C Stumpe; Derek Wu; Arunachalam Narayanaswamy; Subhashini Venugopalan; Kasumi Widner; Tom Madams; Jorge Cuadros; Ramasamy Kim; Rajiv Raman; Philip C Nelson; Jessica L Mega; Dale R Webster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Large scale deep learning for computer aided detection of mammographic lesions.

Authors:  Thijs Kooi; Geert Litjens; Bram van Ginneken; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Clara I Sánchez; Ritse Mann; Ard den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 8.545

6.  Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks.

Authors:  Andre Esteva; Brett Kuprel; Roberto A Novoa; Justin Ko; Susan M Swetter; Helen M Blau; Sebastian Thrun
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.

Authors:  Jerome Friedman; Trevor Hastie; Rob Tibshirani
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 6.440

8.  Generalization error analysis for deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning in breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Caleb D Richter
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Assessment of Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Classification of Chest Radiographs.

Authors:  Jared A Dunnmon; Darvin Yi; Curtis P Langlotz; Christopher Ré; Daniel L Rubin; Matthew P Lungren
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 29.146

10.  Automated diagnosis of mammogram images of breast cancer using discrete wavelet transform and spherical wavelet transform features: a comparative study.

Authors:  Karthikeyan Ganesan; U Rajendra Acharya; Chua Kuang Chua; Lim Choo Min; Thomas K Abraham
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-08-31
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Breast Tumour Classification Using Ultrasound Elastography with Machine Learning: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ye-Jiao Mao; Hyo-Jung Lim; Ming Ni; Wai-Hin Yan; Duo Wai-Chi Wong; James Chung-Wai Cheung
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.