| Literature DB >> 35336813 |
Mahmoud Ragab1,2,3, Ashwag Albukhari2,4, Jaber Alyami5,6, Romany F Mansour7.
Abstract
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) provide an efficient way to diagnose the presence of diseases such as breast cancer using ultrasound images (USIs). Globally, breast cancer is one of the major causes of increased mortality rates among women. Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) models are widely employed in the detection and classification of tumors in USIs. The CAD systems are designed in such a way that they provide recommendations to help radiologists in diagnosing breast tumors and, furthermore, in disease prognosis. The accuracy of the classification process is decided by the quality of images and the radiologist's experience. The design of Deep Learning (DL) models is found to be effective in the classification of breast cancer. In the current study, an Ensemble Deep-Learning-Enabled Clinical Decision Support System for Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Classification (EDLCDS-BCDC) technique was developed using USIs. The proposed EDLCDS-BCDC technique was intended to identify the existence of breast cancer using USIs. In this technique, USIs initially undergo pre-processing through two stages, namely wiener filtering and contrast enhancement. Furthermore, Chaotic Krill Herd Algorithm (CKHA) is applied with Kapur's entropy (KE) for the image segmentation process. In addition, an ensemble of three deep learning models, VGG-16, VGG-19, and SqueezeNet, is used for feature extraction. Finally, Cat Swarm Optimization (CSO) with the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model is utilized to classify the images based on whether breast cancer exists or not. A wide range of simulations were carried out on benchmark databases and the extensive results highlight the better outcomes of the proposed EDLCDS-BCDC technique over recent methods.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical Decision Support System; Deep Learning; Machine Learning; disease diagnosis; image processing; medical imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336813 PMCID: PMC8945718 DOI: 10.3390/biology11030439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Overall process of the EDLCDS-BCDC technique.
Figure 2SqueezeNet architecture.
Figure 3Sample and ground truth images (benign/malignant/normal).
Figure 4Histogram of the images.
Figure 5Sample visualization results: (a) original image; (b) noise-removed image, and (c) contrast-enhanced image.
Analysis results of EDLCDS-BCDC technique with distinct epochs.
| Classes | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Precision (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch-250 | ||||
| Benign | 95.88 | 96.79 | 97.44 | 96.28 |
| Malignant | 95.24 | 97.54 | 93.46 | 96.92 |
| Normal | 95.49 | 98.61 | 93.38 | 98.08 |
| Epoch-500 | ||||
| Benign | 96.57 | 95.63 | 96.57 | 96.15 |
| Malignant | 92.86 | 98.95 | 97.01 | 97.31 |
| Normal | 96.99 | 97.99 | 90.85 | 97.82 |
| Epoch-750 | ||||
| Benign | 95.65 | 96.21 | 96.98 | 95.90 |
| Malignant | 91.90 | 98.25 | 95.07 | 96.54 |
| Normal | 98.50 | 97.68 | 89.73 | 97.82 |
| Epoch-1000 | ||||
| Benign | 97.03 | 96.79 | 97.47 | 96.92 |
| Malignant | 94.76 | 98.77 | 96.60 | 97.69 |
| Normal | 96.24 | 98.30 | 92.09 | 97.95 |
| Epoch-1250 | ||||
| Benign | 96.57 | 97.67 | 98.14 | 97.05 |
| Malignant | 94.29 | 97.72 | 93.84 | 96.79 |
| Normal | 96.24 | 98.30 | 92.09 | 97.95 |
| Epoch-1500 | ||||
| Benign | 96.34 | 95.34 | 96.34 | 95.90 |
| Malignant | 92.86 | 98.25 | 95.12 | 96.79 |
| Normal | 96.24 | 98.45 | 92.75 | 98.08 |
Average analysis results for the EDLCDS-BCDC technique under different measures.
| No. of Epochs | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Precision (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch-250 | 96.01 | 97.95 | 95.39 | 97.52 |
| Epoch-500 | 95.47 | 97.52 | 94.81 | 97.09 |
| Epoch-750 | 95.35 | 97.38 | 93.93 | 96.75 |
| Epoch-1000 | 95.54 | 97.65 | 94.76 | 97.09 |
| Epoch-1250 | 95.70 | 97.90 | 94.69 | 97.26 |
| Epoch-1500 | 95.15 | 97.35 | 94.74 | 96.92 |
Figure 6Accuracy analysis results for the EDLCDS-BCDC technique.
Figure 7Loss graph analysis for the EDLCDS-BCDC technique.
Figure 8ROC analysis results for the EDLCDS-BCDC technique under distinct epochs.
Figure 9Comparative analysis of the EDLCDS-BCDC technique with recent methods.
Figure 10Accuracy analysis of the EDLCDS-BCDC technique compared with recent methods.