| Literature DB >> 33336044 |
Zhiying Xu1, Fatima Rashid Sheykhahmad2, Noradin Ghadimi2, Navid Razmjooy2.
Abstract
Skin cancer is a type of disease in which malignant cells are formed in skin tissues. However, skin cancer is a dangerous disease, and an early detection of this disease helps the therapists to cure this disease. In the present research, an automatic computer-aided method is presented for the early diagnosis of skin cancer. After image noise reduction based on median filter in the first stage, a new image segmentation based on the convolutional neural network optimized by satin bowerbird optimization (SBO) has been adopted and its efficiency has been indicated by the confusion matrix. Then, feature extraction is performed to extract the useful information from the segmented image. An optimized feature selection based on the SBO algorithm is also applied to prune excessive information. Finally, a support vector machine classifier is used to categorize the processed image into the following two groups: cancerous and healthy cases. Simulations have been performed of the American Cancer Society database, and the results have been compared with ten different methods from the literature to investigate the performance of the system in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, negative predictive value, specificity, and positive predictive value.Entities:
Keywords: classification; convolutional neural networks; feature extraction; feature selection; image segmentation; satin bowerbird optimization; skin cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 33336044 PMCID: PMC7711880 DOI: 10.1515/med-2020-0131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Med (Wars)
Figure 1The flowchart of the proposed skin cancer diagnosis system.
Figure 2The structure of a CNN.
Architecture of the suggested CNN
| Layer # | Layer name | Properties |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Input layer | Input image patch size: 256 × 256 × 3 |
| 2 | Convolutional | Blocks of the size: 11 × 11 |
| 3 | ReLU | — |
| 4 | Max pooling | Pool size 2 × 2 |
| 5 | Convolutional | Blocks of the size: 7 × 7 |
| 6 | ReLU | — |
| 7 | Max pooling | Pool size 2 × 2 |
| 8 | Convolutional | Blocks of the size: 3 × 3 |
| 9 | ReLU | — |
| 10 | Dropout | Dropout ratio: 0.6 |
| 11 | Fully connected | 1 × 256 |
| 12 | Softmax | — |
Figure 3The optimized structure of the SBO-based CNN.
Figure 4The results of cancer diagnosis for some examples by the SBO-based CNN. (a) before process, (b) after process.
Confusion matrix for the system
| ACS1 | ACS2 | |
|---|---|---|
| ACS1 | 570 | 9 |
| ACS2 | 7 | 320 |
Adopted features in this study
| Parameter | Equation | Parameter | Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perimeter |
| Correlation |
|
| Area |
| Mean |
|
| Solidity |
| Entropy |
|
| Elongation |
| Variance |
|
| Rectangularity |
| Standard deviation |
|
| Irregularity index |
| Invariant moments |
|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Form factor |
| ||
|
|
| Energy |
|
| Contrast |
| Homogeneity |
|
describes the length of external side for the boundary pixel, MN represents the image size, defines the value of the pixels intensity at location (i, j), a is the major axis and b is the minor axis, describes the mean value, and stands for the standard deviation.
Some significant example features for both cancerous and healthy images
| Parameter | Cancerous | Healthy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | |
| Correlation | 0.9915 | 0.9886 | 0.9872 | 0.9505 | 0.9905 | 0.9898 | 0.9864 | 0.9779 |
| Area | 0.3847 | 0.4492 | 0.5133 | 0.9389 | 0.3988 | 0.4266 | 0.4996 | 0.6086 |
| Energy | 0.6419 | 0.6348 | 0.5746 | 0.6185 | 0.6538 | 0.6320 | 0.6193 | 0.6510 |
| Form factor | 0.1205 | 0.1811 | 0.2253 | 0.6428 | 0.1096 | 0.1328 | 0.1973 | 0.1308 |
| Eccentricity | 0.1215 | 0.1886 | 0.1872 | 0.1505 | 0.1205 | 0.1798 | 0.1864 | 0.2779 |
| Homogeneity | 0.9974 | 0.9964 | 0.9953 | 0.9843 | 0.9972 | 0.9968 | 0.9955 | 0.9934 |
| Contrast | 0.1480 | 0.2018 | 0.2635 | 0.8817 | 0.1591 | 0.1820 | 0.2496 | 0.3704 |
Figure 5Some examples of the used dataset from ACS.
Efficiency analysis of the proposed method compared with the other state-of-art techniques
| Method | Performance metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | NPV | PPV | |
| LIN [ | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.82 |
| AlexNet [ | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.62 | 0.85 | 0.67 |
| VGG-16[ | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.79 |
| Spotmole [ | 0.69 | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.59 |
| Ordinary CNN | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.76 |
| ResNet-50 [ | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.72 |
| ResNet-101 [ | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.76 |
| Inception-v3 [ | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.73 | 0.64 |
| MED-NODE texture descriptor [ | 0.79 | 0.64 | 0.87 | 0.80 | 0.77 |
| MED-NODE color descriptor [ | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.66 |
| Proposed method | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.87 |
Figure 6The Radar plot of the classification rate of skin cancer classification based on the presented technique and the other methods from the literature and its efficiency is indicated by the confusion matrix.