| Literature DB >> 35183227 |
H El Agouri1, M Azizi2, H El Attar3, M El Khannoussi2, A Ibrahimi4, R Kabbaj5, H Kadiri5, S BekarSabein5, S EchCharif5, C Mounjid6, B El Khannoussi5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer is a critical public health issue and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. Its early diagnosis and detection can effectively help in increasing the chances of survival rate. For this reason, the diagnosis and classification of breast cancer using Deep learning algorithms have attracted a lot of attention. Therefore, our study aimed to design a computational approach based on deep convolutional neural networks for an efficient classification of breast cancer histopathological images by using our own created dataset. We collected overall 328 digital slides, from 116 of surgical breast specimens diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma of non-specific type, and referred to the histopathology department of the National Institute of Oncology in Rabat, Morocco. We used two models of deep neural network architectures in order to accurately classify the images into one of three categories: normal tissue-benign lesions, in situ carcinoma or invasive carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Breast cancer; Convolutional Neural Networks; Deep learning; Digital pathology; Machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35183227 PMCID: PMC8857730 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-05936-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Examples of breast histopathological images in our dataset: A normal; B benign; C in situ carcinoma; and D invasive carcinoma (hematoxylin–eosin stain, original magnification ×200)
Fig. 2An overview of the proposed methodology. A Illustration of data-augmentation: from original image to augmented crops. B Illustration of convolutional neural network: from input to output image
Performance metrics of the Resnet50 and Xception architecture on our dataset
| Average accuracy (%) | Confusion matrices | Performance evaluation (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | Predicted | Metric | Class | ||||||||
| Group 0 | Group 1 | Group 2 | All | Carcinoma vs. non-carcinoma | Group 0 vs. Group 1 | Group 0 vs. Group 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | ||||
| Resnet 50 model | |||||||||||
| F1 | 91 | ||||||||||
| F2 | 84 | Group 0 | 4 | 6 | 152 | Sensitivity | 93 | 92 | 93 | 88 | |
| F3 | 85 | Group 1 | 9 | 11 | 70 | Specificity | 87 | 94 | 92 | 84 | |
| F4 | 80 | Group 2 | 12 | 9 | 106 | Precision | 88 | 84 | 87 | 90 | |
| F5 | 91 | All | 163 | 63 | 102 | 328 | Accuracy | 90 | 93 | 92 | 87 |
| F6 | 76 | ||||||||||
| Xception model | |||||||||||
| F1 | 90 | ||||||||||
| F2 | 85 | Group 0 | 4 | 4 | 152 | Sensitivity | 95 | 93 | 95 | 93 | |
| F3 | 81 | Group 1 | 10 | 6 | 70 | Specificity | 88 | 93 | 94 | 90 | |
| F4 | 87 | Group 2 | 9 | 6 | 106 | Precision | 89 | 84 | 91 | 93 | |
| F5 | 95 | All | 163 | 64 | 101 | 328 | Accuracy | 91 | 93 | 94 | 92 |
| F6 | 82 | ||||||||||
The bold data in the confusions matrices have a significance, It means the number of cases that were correctly predicted in each group
Accuracy: average accuracy for three-classification task, using Resnet50 and Xception models, evaluated over sixfolds via cross-validation
Confusion matrices without normalization using Resnet50 and Xception models: vertical axis—ground truth, horizontal—predictions
Performance evaluation: performance metrics of ResNet50 and Xception models for the binary and 3-class classification