| Literature DB >> 35591069 |
Yoshihiro Mitani1, Robert B Fisher2, Yusuke Fujita3, Yoshihiko Hamamoto3, Isao Sakaida4.
Abstract
The average error rate in liver cirrhosis classification on B-mode ultrasound images using the traditional pattern recognition approach is still too high. In order to improve the liver cirrhosis classification performance, image correction methods and a convolution neural network (CNN) approach are focused on. The impact of image correction methods on region of interest (ROI) images that are input into the CNN for the purpose of classifying liver cirrhosis based on data from B-mode ultrasound images is investigated. In this paper, image correction methods based on tone curves are developed. The experimental results show positive benefits from the image correction methods by improving the image quality of ROI images. By enhancing the image contrast of ROI images, the image quality improves and thus the generalization ability of the CNN also improves.Entities:
Keywords: B-mode ultrasound images; convolution neural networks; image correction; image quality improvement; inverse of tone curves; liver cirrhosis classification; tone curves
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591069 PMCID: PMC9105852 DOI: 10.3390/s22093378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Liver ultrasound images.
Figure 2ROI images.
Figure 3CNN structure.
Figure 4Tone curves.
Figure 5Inverse of tone curves.
Figure 6Error rate estimation with the holdout method.
Average error rates of the CNN without (type 0) and with image correction methods of type I, II, and III.
| CNN (Type 0) | Type I | Type II | Type III |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( |
| |
| 33.70 | 33.39 | 31.60 | 32.80 |
| ±4.95 | ±3.77 | ±3.78 | ±3.78 |
Detail of the average error rates of the CNN with image correction methods of type I, II, and III.
| Values of | Type I | Type II | Values of | Type III |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 33.39 | 31.60 | 1/10 | 39.60 |
| ±3.77 | ±3.78 | ±3.99 | ||
| 40 | 33.99 | 32.49 | 1/5 | 34.19 |
| ±4.07 | ±4.30 | ±3.17 | ||
| 60 | 36.60 | 35.20 | 1/3 | 32.90 |
| ±3.83 | ±3.82 | ±3.25 | ||
| 80 | 40.80 | 32.99 | 1/2 | 32.80 |
| ±5.15 | ±3.75 | ±3.12 | ||
| 100 | 39.40 | 34.40 | 1 | 33.70 |
| ±4.78 | ±2.26 | ±4.95 | ||
| 120 | 35.60 | 34.70 | 2 | 37.90 |
| ±4.22 | ±2.21 | ±3.25 | ||
| 140 | 37.10 | 40.50 | 3 | 37.90 |
| ±2.62 | ±3.32 | ±3.25 | ||
| 160 | 42.59 | 43.09 | 5 | 37.90 |
| ±2.80 | ±3.62 | ±3.25 |
Average error rates of the CNN without (type 0) and with image correction methods of type IV, V, VI, and VII.
| CNN (Type 0) | Type IV | Type V | Type VI | Type VII |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( |
| ||
| 33.70 | 33.69 | 32.79 | 30.60 | 33.39 |
| ±4.95 | ±4.46 | ±3.26 | ±3.18 | ±3.84 |
Detail of the average error rates of the CNN with image correction methods of type V, VI, and VII.
| Values of | Type V | Type VI | Values of | Type VII |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | 42.69 | 42.59 | 1/10 | 38.99 |
| ±4.35 | ±5.68 | ±4.39 | ||
| 100 | 38.79 | 40.40 | 1/5 | 36.10 |
| ±4.39 | ±4.34 | ±4.13 | ||
| 120 | 37.40 | 37.20 | 1/3 | 35.79 |
| ±3.58 | ±3.06 | ±4.15 | ||
| 140 | 34.50 | 36.20 | 1/2 | 33.39 |
| ±4.69 | ±3.26 | ±3.84 | ||
| 160 | 32.79 | 34.50 | 1 | 33.70 |
| ±3.26 | ±3.45 | ±4.95 | ||
| 180 | 33.39 | 33.59 | 2 | 37.90 |
| ±4.73 | ±3.47 | ±3.25 | ||
| 200 | 32.89 | 30.60 | 3 | 37.90 |
| ±4.99 | ±3.18 | ±3.25 | ||
| 220 | 33.69 | 31.99 | 5 | 37.90 |
| ±4.46 | ±4.59 | ±3.25 |
Figure 7Difference between the original and the modified ROI image for normal and cirrhosis livers.
Average error rates of classifiers on original images and modified images.
| 1-NN | 3-NN | 5-NN | SVM | LDA | RF | VGG16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| Original | 45.59 | 44.50 | 45.60 | 44.90 | 43.90 | 45.30 | 36.50 |
| images | ±3.14 | ±3.93 | ±2.70 | ±4.20 | ±2.68 | ±4.50 | ±2.63 |
| Modified images | 45.89 | 43.89 | 44.90 | 45.59 | 43.39 | 45.20 | 33.00 |
| type VI ( | ±5.00 | ±4.35 | ±2.60 | ±4.50 | ±3.16 | ±4.20 | ±4.03 |