| Literature DB >> 34790252 |
Xiuzhen Cai1, Xia Li2, Navid Razmjooy3, Noradin Ghadimi4.
Abstract
A common gynecological disease in the world is breast cancer that early diagnosis of this disease can be very effective in its treatment. The use of image processing methods and pattern recognition techniques in automatic breast detection from mammographic images decreases human errors and increments the rapidity of diagnosis. In this paper, mammographic images are analyzed using image processing techniques and a pipeline structure for the diagnosis of the cancerous masses. In the first stage, the quality of mammogram images and the contrast of abnormal areas in the image are improved by using image contrast improvement and a noise decline. A method based on color space is then used for image segmentation that is followed by mathematical morphology. Then, for feature image extraction, a combined gray-level cooccurrence matrix (GLCM) and discrete wavelet transform (DWT) method is used. At last, a new optimized version of convolutional neural network (CNN) and a new improved metaheuristic, called Advanced Thermal Exchange Optimizer, are used for the classification of the features. A comparison of the simulations of the proposed technique with three different techniques from the literature applied on the MIAS mammogram database is performed to show its superiority. Results show that the accuracy of diagnosing cancer cases for the proposed method and applied on the MIAS database is 93.79%, and sensitivity and specificity are obtained 96.89% and 67.7%, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34790252 PMCID: PMC8592754 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5595180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1The statistical information of the cancers (a) and cancer deaths (b) in 2019 [2].
Figure 2Several instances of the breast segmentation of images depending on the approach suggested: (a) basic image and (b) segmented image.
Five GLCM features extracted from the samples.
| Feature name | Mathematical equation |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3An overview of convolutional neural network architecture.
Figure 4The pairs of transfer objects.
Figure 5Some examples of the MIAS database mammography images.
The variable setting of the compared optimizers.
| Algorithm | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|
| BH [ |
| [0, 1] |
| Number of stars | 100 | |
| MVO [ | Traveling distance rate | [0.6, 1] |
| Wormhole existence prob. | [0.2, 1] | |
| SHO [ |
| [0.5, 1] |
|
| [5, 0] |
The comparison achievements between the suggested ATEO algorithm and the other compared algorithms on the CEC2020.
| ATEO | TEO [ | BH [ | MVO [ | SHO [ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Mean | 7.38 | 5.83 | 4.22 | 8.37 | 9.07 |
| Std | 1.29 | 6.19 | 5.13 | 4.38 | 5.46 | |
| F2 | Mean | 5.79 | 9.67 | 4.67 | 1.76 | 4.46 |
| Std | 4.31 | 2.84 | 3.82 | 6.37 | 2.08 | |
| F3 | Mean | 2.08 | 6.92 | 9.37 | 5.17 | 4.83 |
| Std | 1.46 | 3.27 | 4.28 | 8.09 | 6.17 | |
| F4 | Mean | 0.00 | 6.15 | 5.80 | 4.96 | 7.67 |
| Std | 0.00 | 3.48 | 9.37 | 4.18 | 4.08 | |
| F5 | Mean | 1.76 | 4.53 | 6.37 | 6.55 | 9.86 |
| Std | 3.82 | 1.27 | 5.19 | 2.41 | 8.19 | |
| F6 | Mean | 3.29 | 6.12 | 8.09 | 7.18 | 2.96 |
| Std | 4.13 | 2.73 | 3.46 | 4.82 | 4.63 | |
| F7 | Mean | 3.18 | 4.16 | 8.09 | 5.33 | 4.29 |
| Std | 1.24 | 1.08 | 6.17 | 6.81 | 2.82 | |
| F8 | Mean | 7.19 | 8.35 | 2.19 | 5.24 | 2.56 |
| Std | 2.76 | 4.37 | 3.77 | 4.65 | 4.07 | |
| F9 | Mean | 1.96 | 3.17 | 6.51 | 2.85 | 5.11 |
| Std | 1.07 | 2.03 | 8.09 | 6.19 | 6.97 | |
| F10 | Mean | 5.76 | 9.83 | 9.23 | 5.37 | 5.17 |
| Std | 4.27 | 5.94 | 2.60 | 1.93 | 6.93 |
The feature extraction for training data.
| # |
| CR |
| CN | ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.816 | 0.173 | 0.794 | 0.257 | 0.298 |
| 2 | 0.757 | 0.038 | 0.996 | 0.047 | 0.264 |
| 3 | 0.869 | 0.046 | 0.957 | 0.032 | 0.317 |
| 4 | 0.806 | 0.042 | 0.896 | 0.031 | 0.376 |
| 5 | 0.794 | 0.041 | 0.987 | 0.135 | 0.395 |
| 6 | 0.843 | 0.010 | 0.917 | 0.009 | 0.219 |
| 7 | 0.585 | 0.057 | 0.967 | 0.037 | 0.293 |
| 8 | 0.810 | 0.007 | 0.968 | 0.011 | 0.417 |
| 9 | 0.594 | 0.068 | 0.979 | 0.028 | 0.294 |
| 10 | 0.704 | 0.041 | 0.968 | 0.046 | 0.407 |
The feature extraction for the testing data.
| # |
| CR |
| CN | ER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.794 | 0.072 | 0.794 | 0.047 | 0.272 |
| 2 | 0.758 | 0.053 | 0.856 | 0.012 | 0.311 |
| 3 | 0.786 | 0.032 | 0.851 | 0.046 | 0.347 |
| 4 | 0.865 | 0.029 | 0.783 | 0.019 | 0.215 |
| 5 | 0.749 | 0.028 | 0.764 | 0.018 | 0.337 |
| 6 | 0.708 | 0.029 | 0.886 | 0.029 | 0.318 |
| 7 | 0.819 | 0.017 | 0.895 | 0.053 | 0.319 |
| 8 | 0.693 | 0.022 | 0.851 | 0.031 | 0.420 |
| 9 | 0.649 | 0.034 | 0.817 | 0.050 | 0.433 |
| 10 | 0.684 | 0.069 | 0.963 | 0.079 | 0.351 |
Figure 6The comparison results between the suggested pipeline ATEO-based methodology and the mentioned methods applied to the MIAS database.