| Literature DB >> 34239598 |
Liu Wei1, Su Xiao Pan2, Y A Nanehkaran3, V Rajinikanth4.
Abstract
Skin cancer is the most common cancer of the body. It is estimated that more than one million people worldwide develop skin cancer each year. Early detection of this cancer has a high effect on the disease treatment. In this paper, a new optimal and automatic pipeline approach has been proposed for the diagnosis of this disease from dermoscopy images. The proposed method includes a noise reduction process before processing for eliminating the noises. Then, the Otsu method as one of the widely used thresholding method is used to characterize the region of interest. Afterward, 20 different features are extracted from the image. To reduce the method complexity, a new modified version of the Thermal Exchange Optimization Algorithm is performed to the features. This improves the method precision and consistency. To validate the proposed method's efficiency, it is implemented to the American Cancer Society database, its results are compared with some state-of-the-art methods, and the final results showed the superiority of the proposed method against the others.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34239598 PMCID: PMC8235991 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5527698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Image noise reduction: (a) before and (b) after processing.
Figure 2A sample for skin cancer segmentation based on the explained method: (a) input image and (b) segmented.
Figure 3The pairs of environment and the heat and cooling transfer objects.
The information about the utilized test functions.
| No. | Test function | Minimum value | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 0 | −∞≤ |
| 2 |
| 0 | −∞≤ |
| 3 |
| 0 | −∞≤ |
| 4 |
| -18.5547 | 0 ≤ |
| 5 |
| Varies | −∞≤ |
| 6 |
| 0 | −∞≤ |
| 7 |
| 0 | −∞≤ |
| 8 |
| -0.5231 | −∞≤ |
The parameters setting utilized for the comparative algorithms utilized in this study.
| Algorithm | Parameter | Value | Algorithm | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BBO [ |
| 1 | EPO [ |
| [-1.5, 1.5] |
|
| [0,1] |
| [1, 1000] | ||
| Step size | 1 |
| 2 | ||
|
| 1 |
| [ | ||
|
| 1 | S | [0, 1.5] | ||
|
| 0.005 |
| [1.5, 2] | ||
| LS [ |
| 0.6 | SHO [ |
| [0.5, 1] |
|
| 1 |
| [5, 0] | ||
|
| 20 |
The performance analysis of the comparative algorithms applied to studied standard benchmarks.
| Algorithm | BBO [ | LS [ | EPO [ | SHO [ | TEO | MTEO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | |||||||
|
| Min | 2.615 | 1.1100 | -3.2688 | 2.3086 | 2.4400 | 9.2082 |
| Std | 1.448 | 3.3826 | 4.0754 | 1.8827 | 1.0062 | 3.2681 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | 6.0652 | 8.3420 | 5.6024 | 1.4527 | 2.4352 | 7.6700 |
| Std | 4.1073 | 3.0718 | 1.0056 | 2.4807 | 3.0537 | 1.0142 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | -6.1442 | -9.0464 | -9.86 | -8.0826 | -9.86 | -9.86 |
| Std | 0.31 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.06 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | -6.1735 | -17.020 | -16.0035 | -15.2816 | -17.0095 | -17.0572 |
| Std | 3.015 | 1.183 | 2.280 | 4.089 | 1.520 | 0.980 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | 12.35 | 1.486 | 3.0765 | 4.0802 | 1.7085 | 2.6827 |
| Std | 7.831 | 3.0862 | 1.1832 | 5.4403 | 3.7786 | 6.0826 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | 5.165 | 3.1842 | 1.0856 | 1.0846 | 3.0008 | 4.5013 |
| Std | 8.186 | 2.4253 | 5.1738 | 4.7080 | 1.2058 | 2.5387 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | 3.512 | 2.2621 | 4.0305 | 2.6517 | 1.5670 | 7.2837 |
| Std | 1.056 | 3.0856 | 3.8253 | 2.1825 | 2.0834 | 3.1175 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Min | 0.0056 | -0.1361 | -0.2381 | -0.4735 | -0.4680 | -0.4162 |
| Std | 0.542 | 0.356 | 0.274 | 0.704 | 0.141 | 0.089 | |
Figure 4Some examples of the American Cancer Society (ACS) database [43].
Figure 5The pipeline of the proposed methodology.
The validation results of the compared method for skin cancer diagnosis.
| Method | Performance metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPV | PPV | Specificity | Accuracy | Sensitivity | |
| PSO | 93.69 | 89.19 | 88.29 | 88.29 | 90.99 |
| m-Skin Doctor | 83.87 | 65.76 | 61.26 | 81.98 | 83.78 |
| GFAC | 88.28 | 77.48 | 82.88 | 86.48 | 89.19 |
| ANN | 82.88 | 58.56 | 56.76 | 67.57 | 81.98 |
| GA | 85.58 | 74.77 | 79.28 | 81.08 | 79.28 |
| Proposed method | 93.69 | 85.58 | 89.19 | 92.79 | 90.99 |