| Literature DB >> 34326869 |
Abstract
A quarter of all cancer deaths are due to lung cancer. Studies show that early diagnosis and treatment of this disease are the most effective way to increase patient life expectancy. In this paper, automatic and optimized computer-aided detection is proposed for lung cancer. The method first applies a preprocessing step for normalizing and denoising the input images. Afterward, Kapur entropy maximization is performed along with mathematical morphology to lung area segmentation. Afterward, 19 GLCM features are extracted from the segmented images for the final evaluations. The higher priority images are then selected for decreasing the system complexity. The feature selection is based on a new optimization design, called Improved Thermal Exchange Optimization (ITEO), which is designed to improve the accuracy and convergence abilities. The images are finally classified into healthy or cancerous cases based on an optimized artificial neural network by ITEO. Simulation is compared with some well-known approaches and the results showed the superiority of the suggested method. The results showed that the proposed method with 92.27% accuracy provides the highest value among the compared methods.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34326869 PMCID: PMC8302375 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6078524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The heat transfer groups and the environment and cooling objects pairs.
The parameter settings of the studied algorithms.
| Algorithm | Parameter | Value | Algorithm | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAR [ | SE | 0.5 | LSO [ | F | 0.6 |
| MU | 20 | L | 1 | ||
| TEO [ |
| 0 | g | 20 | |
|
| 1 | MVO [ | Traveling distance rate | [0.6, 1] | |
| pro | 0.3 | Wormhole existence prob. | [0.2, 1] | ||
| TM | 28.5 | CSA [ | fl | 2 |
The equations and the boundaries of the studied benchmarks in the analysis.
| Function | Equation | Constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Rastrigin |
| [30,50] |
| Rosenbrock |
| [−2.045, 2.045] |
| Ackley |
| [−10,10] |
| Sphere |
| [−512,512] |
The performance analysis of the studied algorithm.
| Algorithm |
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSO [ | Min | 11.428 | 0.035 | 0.022 | 1.327 |
| Max | 4.284 | 6.534 | 0.679 | 6.192 | |
| Mean | 2.168 | 1.295 | 2.195 | 3.084 | |
| Std | 5.153 | 21.931 | 3.645 | 4.339 | |
|
| |||||
| CSA [ | Min | 8.3161 | 0.028 | 7.65 | 1.446 |
| Max | 492.57 | 2.193 | 4.15 | 11.28 | |
| Mean | 120.75 | 1.137 | 5.17 | 8.294 | |
| Std | 69.253 | 0.066 | 1.01 | 4.495 | |
|
| |||||
| MVO [ | Min | 9.192 | 4.168 | 8.195 | 0.957 |
| Max | 1.15 | 4.279 | 7.086 | 1.492 | |
| Mean | 22.49 | 9.153 | 1.517 | 1.137 | |
| Std | 38.76 | 1.097 | 3.349 | 0.846 | |
|
| |||||
| SAR [ | Min | 0.716 | 4.82 | 8.16 | 1.651 |
| Max | 11.05 | 5.61 | 2.94 | 3.287 | |
| Mean | 4.13 | 5.29 | 1.19 | 0.201 | |
| Std | 3.62 | 2.46 | 4.36 | 0.146 | |
|
| |||||
| TEO [ | Min | 0.356 | 9.208 | 4.192 | 3.062 |
| Max | 15.349 | 11.193 | 5.930 | 9.836 | |
| Mean | 9.3462 | 34.255 | 3.591 | 3.491 | |
| Std | 2.896 | 3.673 | 5.086 | 2.038 | |
|
| |||||
| ITEO | Min | 0.00 | 8.376 | 6.956 | 6.763 |
| Max | 4.207 | 3.205 | 3.907 | 6.358 | |
| Mean | 3.164 | 1.343 | 1.2084 | 1.928 | |
| Std | 1.237 | 2.934 | 3.666 | 1.117 | |
Figure 2The flowchart of classification based on optimized ANN/ITEO.
Figure 3An example of the image segmentation: (a) Original image, (b) histogram of the image, (c) image segmentation based on Kapur technique, and (d) image (c) after mathematical morphology.
The GLCM data results of 20 first images from the lung CT-diagnosis database.
| Image # | Homogeneity | IMC 1 | IMC 2 | Inverse difference | Highest probability | Sum average | Sum entropy | Sum of square variance | Sum variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.916 | −0.914 | 0.654 | 0.997 | 0.717 | 2.372 | 0.407 | 0.553 | 0.662 |
| 2 | −0.900 | −0.879 | 0.212 | 0.992 | 0.531 | 2.357 | 0.552 | 0.506 | 0.711 |
| 3 | −0.884 | −0.88 | 0.625 | 0.991 | 0.891 | 2.68 | 0.69 | 0.147 | 0.374 |
| 4 | −0.891 | −0.929 | 0.476 | 0.992 | 0.529 | 2.472 | 0.601 | 0.147 | 0.21 |
| 5 | −0.911 | −0.903 | 0.476 | 0.992 | 0.692 | 2.517 | 0.558 | 0.211 | 0.091 |
| 6 | −0.895 | −0.915 | 0.274 | 0.993 | 0.865 | 2.532 | 0.23 | 0.123 | 0.075 |
| 7 | −0.915 | −0.875 | 0.713 | 0.993 | 0.674 | 2.308 | 0.384 | 0.397 | 0.43 |
| 8 | −0.882 | −0.914 | 0.405 | 0.991 | 0.771 | 2.41 | 0.495 | 0.659 | 0.554 |
| 9 | −0.881 | −0.859 | 0.355 | 0.995 | 0.861 | 2.434 | 0.423 | 0.517 | 0.078 |
| 10 | −0.888 | −0.866 | 0.416 | 0.992 | 0.891 | 2.194 | 0.198 | 0.453 | 0.483 |
| 11 | −0.917 | −0.905 | 0.437 | 0.992 | 0.911 | 2.437 | 0.296 | 0.68 | 0.382 |
| 12 | −0.913 | −0.895 | 0.544 | 0.995 | 0.584 | 2.517 | 0.629 | 0.174 | 0.14 |
| 13 | −0.925 | −0.877 | 0.554 | 0.997 | 0.614 | 2.356 | 0.179 | 0.709 | 0.677 |
| 14 | −0.893 | −0.865 | 0.449 | 0.998 | 0.896 | 2.602 | 0.645 | 0.181 | 0.433 |
| 15 | −0.887 | −0.885 | 0.451 | 0.995 | 0.762 | 2.539 | 0.213 | 0.451 | 0.328 |
| 16 | −0.885 | −0.888 | 0.525 | 0.998 | 0.722 | 2.316 | 0.538 | 0.204 | 0.679 |
| 17 | −0.907 | −0.911 | 0.614 | 0.995 | 0.77 | 2.373 | 0.445 | 0.479 | 0.479 |
| 18 | −0.904 | −0.899 | 0.799 | 0.995 | 0.861 | 2.332 | 0.29 | 0.113 | 0.336 |
| 19 | −0.931 | −0.876 | 0.655 | 0.993 | 0.735 | 2.565 | 0.484 | 0.616 | 0.068 |
| 20 | −0.886 | −0.86 | 0.452 | 0.994 | 0.589 | 2.541 | 0.237 | 0.67 | 0.393 |
The GLCM data results of 20 first images from the lung CT-diagnosis database.
| Image # | Autocorrelation | Cluster prominence | Cluster shade | Contrast | Correlation | Difference entropy | Difference variance | Dissimilarity | Energy | Entropy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.5292 | 0.9281 | 0.2484 | 0.0031 | 0.951 | 0.0101 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.8911 | 0.2308 |
| 2 | 1.7732 | 1.4425 | 0.5614 | 0.0049 | 0.9617 | 0.017 | 0.003 | 0.0029 | 0.749 | 0.424 |
| 3 | 1.5332 | 0.9471 | 0.2584 | 0.0024 | 0.9637 | 0.0023 | 0.0005 | 0.0004 | 0.8903 | 0.2274 |
| 4 | 2.0352 | 1.5474 | 0.6374 | 0.0086 | 0.957 | 0.0357 | 0.0063 | 0.0066 | 0.6421 | 0.5764 |
| 5 | 1.4202 | 0.5069 | 0.0204 | 0.0031 | 0.9247 | 0.0045 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.9595 | 0.101 |
| 6 | 1.3862 | 0.3493 | 0.1646 | 0.0015 | 0.9515 | 0.0133 | 0.0014 | 0.0014 | 0.984 | 0.0444 |
| 7 | 0.7428 | 0.7435 | 0.3716 | 0.0035 | 0.9413 | 0.029 | 0.0033 | 0.0035 | 0.9226 | 0.1792 |
| 8 | 0.7528 | 0.8409 | 0.4256 | 0.0024 | 0.975 | 0.0352 | 0.0046 | 0.0044 | 0.9064 | 0.2137 |
| 9 | 0.7668 | 0.8365 | 0.4216 | 0.0007 | 0.994 | 0.0257 | 0.003 | 0.0029 | 0.9105 | 0.2015 |
| 10 | 1.4782 | 0.7423 | 0.3716 | 0.0029 | 0.9603 | 0.0381 | 0.0051 | 0.005 | 0.921 | 0.1889 |
| 11 | 1.5302 | 0.9288 | 0.4746 | 0.0024 | 0.9826 | 0.0353 | 0.0045 | 0.0046 | 0.891 | 0.2391 |
| 12 | 1.5432 | 0.9597 | 0.2674 | 0.0039 | 0.9666 | 0.0466 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.881 | 0.2612 |
| 13 | 1.7702 | 1.4266 | 0.5524 | 0.0057 | 0.9891 | 0.0522 | 0.0077 | 0.0058 | 0.7585 | 0.4381 |
| 14 | 1.7072 | 0.8725 | 0.5024 | 0.0071 | 0.9858 | 0.0315 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.784 | 0.3995 |
| 15 | 1.0348 | 0.9531 | 0.7806 | 0.0072 | 0.9916 | 0.0294 | 0.0052 | 0.0051 | 0.756 | 0.4349 |
| 16 | 0.8828 | 0.6969 | 0.6166 | 0.0038 | 0.9594 | 0.0109 | 0.0018 | 0.0017 | 0.8405 | 0.3082 |
| 17 | 0.8948 | 0.7077 | 0.6256 | 0.0091 | 0.9283 | 0.0383 | 0.009 | 0.0069 | 0.8264 | 0.3453 |
| 18 | 2.0578 | 1.2224 | 0.1826 | 0.0204 | 0.94 | 0.105 | 0.0199 | 0.02 | 0.4803 | 0.7899 |
| 19 | 0.6988 | 0.5715 | 0.2796 | 0.002 | 0.955 | 0.0184 | 0.002 | 0.0019 | 0.9541 | 0.1186 |
| 20 | 1.7448 | 1.3354 | 0.5706 | 0.0141 | 0.9508 | 0.0811 | 0.0141 | 0.014 | 0.5192 | 0.7325 |
The optimum features using the proposed ITEO applied to GLCM.
| Image # | Autocorrelation | Correlation | Energy | Homogeneity | Inverse difference | Highest probability | Sum average | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.163 | 0.97 | 0.8911 | 0.9972 | 0.9971 | 0.9417 | 2.1095 | Yes |
| 2 | 1.407 | 0.9807 | 0.749 | 0.9966 | 0.9965 | 0.8594 | 2.2728 | Yes |
| 3 | 1.167 | 0.9827 | 0.8903 | 0.9979 | 0.9978 | 0.9411 | 2.1119 | Yes |
| 4 | 1.669 | 0.976 | 0.6421 | 0.9948 | 0.9947 | 0.769 | 2.4488 | Yes |
| 5 | 1.054 | 0.9437 | 0.9595 | 0.997 | 0.997 | 0.969 | 2.036 | Yes |
| 6 | 1.02 | 0.9705 | 0.986 | 0.9985 | 0.9984 | 0.9931 | 2.0131 | Yes |
| 7 | 1.111 | 0.9603 | 0.9246 | 0.9993 | 0.9972 | 0.9611 | 2.0748 | Yes |
| 8 | 1.121 | 0.954 | 0.9064 | 0.9988 | 0.9987 | 0.9512 | 2.0955 | Yes |
| 9 | 1.135 | 0.975 | 0.9105 | 0.9996 | 0.9995 | 0.9534 | 2.0928 | Yes |
| 10 | 1.112 | 0.9413 | 0.921 | 0.9985 | 0.9984 | 0.959 | 2.0782 | Yes |
| 11 | 1.164 | 0.9636 | 0.891 | 0.997 | 0.998 | 0.94 | 2.1127 | Yes |
| 12 | 1.177 | 0.9476 | 0.879 | 0.996 | 0.997 | 0.9351 | 2.121 | Yes |
| 13 | 1.404 | 0.9701 | 0.7565 | 0.9971 | 0.995 | 0.859 | 2.2727 | Yes |
| 14 | 1.341 | 0.9648 | 0.784 | 0.9952 | 0.9951 | 0.8774 | 2.2339 | No |
| 15 | 1.403 | 0.9706 | 0.756 | 0.9954 | 0.9953 | 0.8585 | 2.2723 | No |
| 16 | 1.251 | 0.9784 | 0.8405 | 0.9971 | 0.997 | 0.9142 | 2.1682 | No |
| 17 | 1.263 | 0.9473 | 0.8284 | 0.9945 | 0.9944 | 0.9062 | 2.1787 | No |
| 18 | 2.426 | 0.961 | 0.4823 | 0.9907 | 0.9907 | 0.5114 | 2.9592 | No |
| 19 | 1.067 | 0.976 | 0.9541 | 1.0001 | 1 | 0.9767 | 2.0473 | No |
| 20 | 2.113 | 0.9718 | 0.5192 | 0.994 | 0.9939 | 0.6199 | 2.7485 | No |
Figure 4The efficiency validation of the suggested method compared with some well-known methods based on three mentioned indicators.