| Literature DB >> 33802625 |
Nazila Esmaeili1,2, Axel Boese1, Nikolaos Davaris3, Christoph Arens3, Nassir Navab2, Michael Friebe1,4, Alfredo Illanes1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feature extraction is an essential part of a Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) system. It is usually preceded by a pre-processing step and followed by image classification. Usually, a large number of features is needed to end up with the desired classification results. In this work, we propose a novel approach for texture feature extraction. This method was tested on larynx Contact Endoscopy (CE)-Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) image classification to provide more objective information for otolaryngologists regarding the stage of the laryngeal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: classification; contact endoscopy; larynx; narrow band imaging; texture feature extraction
Year: 2021 PMID: 33802625 PMCID: PMC8001098 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030432
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1(a): RGB 2D image. (b): 3D representation of image. (c) Stage profile of similar trajectory on two images.
Figure 2Feature extraction flowchart.
Figure 3(a): Original CE-NBI image, (b): Pre-processed image with one random trajectory, (c): The stage profile of the random trajectory plus the cyclist’s energy and power values of the random trajectory and the 500 trajectories (whole image).
Classification results of four classifiers using three features sets.
| Classifiers | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GF | EF | CyEfF | GF | EF | CyEfF | GF | EF | CyEfF | |
| SVM with Polykernel | 0.820 | 0.739 | 0.882 | 0.818 | 0.792 | 0.845 | 0.822 | 0.596 | 0.924 |
| SVM with RBF | 0.806 | 0.761 | 0.875 | 0.817 | 0.802 | 0.826 | 0.821 | 0.515 | 0.920 |
| kNN | 0.885 | 0.781 | 0.874 | 0.911 | 0.812 | 0.834 | 0.836 | 0.531 | 0.911 |
| RF | 0.920 | 0.788 | 0.859 | 0.935 | 0.801 | 0.831 | 0.892 | 0.538 | 0.886 |
Classification results of four classifiers using combination of feature sets.
| Classifier | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GF+EF | GF+CyEfF | GF+EF | GF+CyEfF | GF+EF | GF+CyEfF | |
| SVM with Polykernel | 0.782 | 0.944 | 0.816 | 0.942 | 0.738 | 0.947 |
| SVM with RBF | 0.773 | 0.897 | 0.813 | 0.981 | 0.702 | 0.818 |
| kNN | 0.795 | 0.966 | 0.837 | 0.959 | 0.718 | 0.973 |
| RF | 0.808 | 0.956 | 0.831 | 0.952 | 0.724 | 0.961 |
Feature ranking results: -: GF, -: EF and , : CyEfF.
| Method | Ranking | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
| F38 | F21 | F39 | F14 | F24 | F22 | F09 | F20 | F17 | F15 | |
| Wilcoxon signed-rank | F14 | F38 | F39 | F21 | F24 | F08 | F09 | F22 | F15 | F07 |
Figure 4(a): Box plot of energy and power features. (b): Projected data points of benign and malignant classes using CyEfF.