| Literature DB >> 34335727 |
Jia Huaping1, Zhao Junlong2, A M Norouzzadeh Gil Molk3.
Abstract
Early diagnosis of malignant skin cancer from images is a significant part of the cancer treatment process. One of the principal purposes of this research is to propose a pipeline methodology for an optimum computer-aided diagnosis of skin cancers. The method contains four main stages. The first stage is to perform a preprocessing based on noise reduction and contrast enhancement. The second stage is to segment the region of interest (ROI). This study uses kernel fuzzy C-means for ROI segmentation. Then, some features from the ROI are extracted, and then, a feature selection is used for selecting the best ones. The selected features are then injected into a support vector machine (SVM) for final identification. One important part of the contribution in this study is to propose a developed version of a new metaheuristic, named neural network optimization algorithm, to optimize both parts of feature selection and SVM classifier. Comparison results of the method with 5 state-of-the-art methods showed the approach's higher superiority toward the others.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34335727 PMCID: PMC8313328 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9651957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The statistical information of the lead cancers in (a) quantity and (b) death value in 2019 [4].
Figure 2The flowchart of the suggested approach.
Figure 3Image noise reduction: (a) image plus 0.1 salt and pepper noises and (b) image after noise reduction with median filtering.
Figure 4(a) Original Image with low contrast. (b) Histogram of (A). (c) Contrast improvement of (A). (d) Histogram of (C).
Figure 5Two sample examples of skin cancer segmentation based on the proposed KFCM methodology.
Figure 6The structure of NNA.
The applied test functions for the analysis.
| Function | Formula | Minimum | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenbrock |
| 0 | [−30,30] |
| Sum squares |
| 0 | [−10,10] |
| Step 2 |
| 0 | [−100,100] |
| Schwefel 2.22 |
| 0 | [−10,10] |
| Schwefel 1.2 |
| 0 | [−100,100] |
| Chung Reynolds |
| 0 | [−100,100] |
The simulation results of the comparative algorithms on the studied benchmark functions, moth-flame optimization (MFO) algorithm [28], world cup optimizer (WCO) [19], and the original neural network algorithm (NNA).
| Algorithm |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVO [ | Min | 17.58 | 0.0024 | 0.0031 | 19.38 | 0 | 6.37 |
| Max | 7.29 | 436.15 | 3.86 | 2.37 | 5.39 | 4.19 | |
| Mean | 2.96 | 280.16 | 4.19 | 67.25 | 6.15 | 1.27 | |
| Std | 5.79 | 95.37 | 6.37 | 11.62 | 3.19 | 3.07 | |
| MFO [ | Min | 28.14 | 2.57 | 0.051 | 6.29 | 4.38 | 8.39 |
| Max | 129.08 | 4.18 | 9.27 | 53.49 | 0.015 | 110.35 | |
| Mean | 80.46 | 23.09 | 4.52 | 30.17 | 0.02 | 35.08 | |
| Std | 22.46 | 1.64 | 1.73 | 3.28 | 0.01 | 24.63 | |
| WCO [ | Min | 7.39 | 5.13 | 5.92 | 2.57 | 1.94 | 6.38 |
| Max | 1.38 | 0.264 | 0.017 | 4.12 | 7.51 | 7.29 | |
| Mean | 105.37 | 0.0573 | 0.024 | 3.28 | 6.48 | 1.18 | |
| Std | 14.83 | 0.0873 | 3.28 | 1.23 | 4.29 | 3.19 | |
| NNA [ | Min | 4.91 | 6.29 | 9.75 | 0.017 | 9.37 | 5.9 |
| Max | 45.22 | 34.39 | 1.19 | 4.62 | 2.58 | 5.19 | |
| Mean | 13.83 | 6.30 | 5.94 | 0.532 | 3.42 | 6.67 | |
| Std | 5.29 | 3.62 | 6.53 | 0.42 | 1.97 | 7.50 | |
| INNA | Min | 5.16 | 15.26 | 6.37 | 6.38 | 7.26 | 6.71 |
| Max | 111.57 | 6.76 | 4.29 | 3.95 | 0.0234 | 9.43 | |
| Mean | 24.13 | 2.48 | 1.17 | 1.09 | 3.11 | 4.57 | |
| Std | 12.28 | 6.19 | 5.64 | 9.64 | 11.97 | 9.55 | |
Utilized features for the extraction.
| Parameter | Equation | Parameter | Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elongation |
| Compactness |
|
| Area | ∑ | Mean | 1/MN(∑ |
| Perimeter | ∑ | Correlation | ∑ |
| Variance | 1/MN(∑ | Solidity | Area/convex area |
| Invariant moments |
| Entropy | −∑ |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Elongation |
| Eccentricity | 2 |
| Rectangularity | Area/ | Energy | ∑ |
| Irregularity index | 4 | Standard deviation | Variance1/2 |
| Form factor | Area/a2 |
MN describes the image size, B defines the external side length for the boundary pixel, p(i, j) defines the pixels intensity amount at position (i, j), μ and σ describe the mean value and the standard deviation, orderly, and a and b present the major axis and the minor axis, respectively. However, some of the above features have a high impact, and some others have a low impact on feature extraction.
Figure 7A typical model of an SVM.
The classification results of INNA-SVM method based on different kernels in two databases.
| Database | Kernel | ACC (%) | Pr (%) | SN (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACS [ | Linear | 64.19 | 65.18 | 64.19 |
| RBF | 37.57 | 38.09 | 37.57 | |
| Polynomial | 46.29 | 38.61 | 46.29 | |
| Sigmoid | 40.16 | 41.53 | 40.16 | |
| PH2 [ | Linear | 70.00 | 69.00 | 71.00 |
| RBF | 42.00 | 43.00 | 42.00 | |
| Polynomial | 51.00 | 45.00 | 51.00 | |
| Sigmoid | 42.50 | 46.00 | 53.00 |
The performance comparison between the suggested method and the analyzed methods.
| Method | MCC (%) | SP (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The proposed method | 92.35 | 88.67 | 81.43 | 92.66 | 81.69 |
| Astorino's method [ | 72.29 | 87.49 | 81.37 | 86.72 | 69.29 |
| Hassan's method [ | 75.46 | 80.76 | 69.35 | 85.87 | 63.49 |
| Barros's method [ | 83.65 | 60.34 | 68.37 | 83.98 | 70.81 |
| Santos's method [ | 85.74 | 60.41 | 71.95 | 86.69 | 76.76 |
| Wang's method [ | 88.67 | 80.77 | 74.49 | 83.71 | 82.92 |