| Literature DB >> 35769710 |
Ahila A1, Poongodi M2, Sami Bourouis3, Shahab S Band4, Amir Mosavi5, Shweta Agrawal6, Mounir Hamdi2.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most menacing cancer among all types of cancer in women around the globe. Early diagnosis is the only way to increase the treatment options which then decreases the death rate and increases the chance of survival in patients. However, it is a challenging task to differentiate abnormal breast tissues from normal tissues because of their structure and unclear boundaries. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis and classification of breast lesions into malignant or benign lesions is an active domain of research. Over the decade, numerous artificial neural network (ANN)-based techniques were adopted in order to diagnose and classify breast cancer due to the unique characteristics of learning key features from complex data via a training process. However, these schemes have limitations like slow convergence and longer training time. To address the above mentioned issues, this paper employs a meta-heuristic algorithm for tuning the parameters of the neural network. The main novelty of this work is the computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detecting abnormalities in breast ultrasound images by integrating a wavelet neural network (WNN) and the grey wolf optimization (GWO) algorithm. Here, breast ultrasound (US) images are preprocessed with a sigmoid filter followed by interference-based despeckling and then by anisotropic diffusion. The automatic segmentation algorithm is adopted to extract the region of interest, and subsequently morphological and texture features are computed. Finally, the GWO-tuned WNN is exploited to accomplish the classification task. The classification performance of the proposed scheme is validated on 346 ultrasound images. Efficiency of the proposed methodology is evaluated by computing the confusion matrix and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Numerical analysis revealed that the proposed work can yield higher classification accuracy when compared to the prevailing methods and thereby proves its potential in effective breast tumor detection and classification. The proposed GWO-WNN method (98%) gives better accuracy than other methods like SOM-SVM (87.5), LOFA-SVM (93.62%), MBA-RF (96.85%), and BAS-BPNN (96.3%).Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer detection; computer-aided diagnosis; supervised learning; texture features; ultrasound imaging; wavelet neural network
Year: 2022 PMID: 35769710 PMCID: PMC9234296 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.834028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Articulation of the Proposed CAD system.
Nomenclature.
| S.No | Symbol | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | X | Input network |
| 2 | Y | Output network |
| 3 | H | Input breast US image |
| 4 | mn | Minimum gray value of the image |
| 5 | mx | Maximum gray value of the image |
| 6 | W | Weights between the layers |
| 7 | Ψ | Wavelet activation function |
| 8 |
| Center of the image |
| 9 |
| Width of the image |
| 10 |
| Wavelet number |
| 11 | j | Wavelet level |
| 12 | k | Translation parameter |
| 13 | F | No. of features in the network |
| 14 | y | No. of classes in the network |
| 15 | Z | No. of hidden layers in the network |
| 16 | b | Bias |
| 17 | D | Modified distance vectors |
| 18 | C,E | GWO parameters |
Figure 2Processing results. (A) Ultrasound image and (B) enhanced ultrasound image.
Figure 3Despeckling results. (A) Raw US image and (B) filtered image.
Figure 4ROI segmentation. (A) Ultrasound image and (B) segmented image.
Figure 5Selected features for this proposed scheme.
Figure 6Structure of WNN.
Figure 7US image dataset.
Figure 8Sample images. (A) Benign and (B) malignant (30)
Figure 9Processed benign images. (A) US image, (B) enhancement, (C) despeckling, and (D) Segmentation.
Figure 10Processed malignant images. (A) US image, (B) enhancement, (C) despeckling, and (D) Segmentation.
Figure 11Confusion matrix.
Figure 12Performance comparison with existing methods.
Classification performance of the proposed GWO-tuned WNN with existing classifiers.
| Contributors | Data | Method | Accuracy(%) | Sensitivity(%) | Specificity(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | US image | SOM-SVM | 87.5 | 86.11 | 88.54 |
| ( | US | LFO-ASVM | 93.62 | 90 | 96.3 |
| ( | WDBC | MBA-RF | 96.85 | 91.4 | 93.2 |
| ( | WDBC | BAS-BPNN | 96.3 | 96.3 | 95.69 |
|
| US | GWO-WNN | 98 | 98.8 | 95.9 |
Figure 13ROC curve comparison.