| Literature DB >> 35591254 |
Yoon Ji Kim1, Woong Ju2, Kye Hyun Nam3, Soo Nyung Kim4, Young Jae Kim1, Kwang Gi Kim1,5.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is one of the main causes of death from cancer in women. However, it can be treated successfully at an early stage. This study aims to propose an image processing algorithm based on acetowhite, which is an important criterion for diagnosing cervical cancer, to increase the accuracy of the deep learning classification model. Then, we mainly compared the performance of the model, the original image without image processing, a mask image made with acetowhite as the region of interest, and an image using the proposed algorithm. In conclusion, the deep learning classification model based on images with the proposed algorithm achieved an accuracy of 81.31%, which is approximately 9% higher than the model with original images and approximately 4% higher than the model with acetowhite mask images. Our study suggests that the proposed algorithm based on acetowhite could have a better performance than other image processing algorithms for classifying stages of cervical images.Entities:
Keywords: RGB channel superposition; ResNet; acetowhite; cervical cancer; deep learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591254 PMCID: PMC9099840 DOI: 10.3390/s22093564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1A schematic diagram of the RGB channel superposition process. (a) Acetowhite mask image (b) Original image (c) RGB channel superposition image.
Figure 2Nine cases of cervical images made through RGB channel superposition.
Figure 3Diagram of the ResNet 50 model architecture.
Deep learning model performance evaluation score of each RGB channel superposition case.
| Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MR + OG+ OB | 90.18 | 68.51 | 77.51 | 79.56 |
| MR + OG + OR | 89.60 | 69.59 | 77.96 | 79.89 |
| MR + OB + OR | 90.05 | 72.55 | 79.94 | 81.31 |
| MG + OG + OB | 89.18 | 70.46 | 78.61 | 80.22 |
| MG + OG + OR | 89.75 | 70.03 | 78.37 | 80.22 |
| MG + OB + OR | 89.86 | 68.96 | 77.85 | 79.67 |
| MB + OG + OB | 91.19 | 68.53 | 77.58 | 79.89 |
| MB + OG + OR | 87.88 | 70.65 | 78.10 | 79.67 |
| MB + OB + OR | 88.77 | 68.35 | 77.26 | 78.80 |
Performance evaluation score of each deep learning model according to the applied algorithm.
| Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original image | 84.73 | 57.45 | 68.25 | 72.46 |
| Acetowhite mask | 84.70 | 66.45 | 74.41 | 76.28 |
| RGB channel superposition | 90.05 | 72.55 | 79.94 | 81.31 |
Figure 4Critical Difference Diagram of the Friedman–Nemenyi test for deep learning model performance comparison. The number shows the lank of three models. The lower the rank, the better the performance of a model.
Figure 5ROC graph and AUC of the original, acetowhite mask, and RGB channel superposition models.