| Literature DB >> 35874325 |
Mahin Tasnimi1, Hamid Reza Ghaffari1.
Abstract
Diagnosing benign and malignant glands in thyroid ultrasound images is considered a challenging issue. Recently, deep learning techniques have significantly resulted in extracting features from medical images and classifying them. Convolutional neural networks ignore the hierarchical structure of entities within images and do not pay attention to spatial information as well as the need for a large number of training samples. Capsule networks consist of different hierarchical capsules equivalent to the same layers in the convolutional neural networks. We propose a feature extraction method for ultrasound images based on the capsule network. Then, we combine those deep features with conventional features such as Histogram of Oriented Gradients and Local Binary Pattern together to form a hybrid feature space. We increase the accuracy percentage of a support vector machine (SVM) by balancing and reducing the data dimensions of samples. Since the SVM provides different training kernels according to the sample distribution method, the extracted textural features were categorized using each of these kernels to obtain the result. The parameters of classification evaluation using the researcher-made model have outperformed the other methods in this field. Experimental results showed that the combination of HOG, LBP, and CapsNet methods outperformed the others, with 83.95% accuracy in the SVM with a linear kernel.Entities:
Keywords: Capsule network; Deep learning; Histogram of oriented gradients algorithm; Local binary pattern algorithm; Thyroid diagnosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35874325 PMCID: PMC9289652 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-022-13433-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Fig. 1General schematic chart of the proposed model
Fig. 2The initial input (right) and output (left) images after preprocessing
Fig. 3Schematic of the CapsNet
Fig. 4Comparative diagram of the performance of different feature extraction and classification methods with a linear kernel
Fig. 5Comparative diagram of the performance of different feature extraction and classification methods with the Gaussian kernel
Fig. 6Comparative diagram of the performance of different feature extraction and classification methods with polynomial kernels
Classification results using SVM with linear kernel function
| Feature extraction methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1_Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOG | 0.5954 | 0.5956 | 0.5976 | 0.5936 |
| LBP | 0.7569 | 0.7567 | 0.7562 | 0.7565 |
| CAPSNET | 0.4982 | 0.5017 | 0.3020 | 0.3511 |
| HOG + LBP | 0.7813 | 0.7812 | 0.7854 | 0.7804 |
| HOG + CAPSNET | 0.5712 | 0.5712 | 0.5731 | 0.5677 |
| LBP + CAPSNET | 0.7569 | 0.7569 | 0.7562 | 0.7565 |
| HOG + LBP + CAPSNET | 0.8395 | 0.5397 | 0.7186 | 0.5239 |
Classification results using SVM with Gaussian kernel function
| Feature extraction methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1_Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOG | 0.9878 | 0.9877 | 0.9883 | 0.9878 |
| LBP | 0.9982 | 0.9981 | 0.9983 | 0.9981 |
| CAPSNET | 0.5128 | 0.5034 | 0.3491 | 0.3392 |
| HOG + LBP | 0.9982 | 0.9981 | 0.9983 | 0.9979 |
| HOG + CAPSNET | 0.9878 | 0.9877 | 0.9983 | 0.9980 |
| LBP+ CAPSNET | 0.9975 | 0.9974 | 0.9983 | 0.9980 |
| HOG + LBP + CAPSNET | 0.8681 | 0.6237 | 0.9312 | 0.6582 |
Classification results using support vector machine with polynomial kernel function
| Feature extraction methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | F1_Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOG | 0.5955 | 0.5959 | 0.6553 | 0.5532 |
| LBP | 0.9513 | 0.9514 | 0.9529 | 0.9529 |
| CAPSNET | 0.8264 | 0.8267 | 0.8434 | 0.8234 |
| HOG + LBP | 0.6076 | 0.6079 | 0.6662 | 0.5714 |
| HOG + CAPSNET | 0.6042 | 0.6045 | 0.6670 | 0.5655 |
| LBP+ CAPSNET | 0.9513 | 0.9514 | 0.9529 | 0.9513 |
| HOG + LBP + CAPSNET | 0.8252 | 0.5010 | 0.4126 | 0.4521 |
Comparison of a different CAD system in classifying benign and malignant thyroid gland images
| Specificity % | Sensitivity% | Accuracy% | Classifiers | Method for Feature Extraction | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87.20 | 88.20 | 87.80 | SVM | Fine-tuned VGG-16 | Shi, Z et al. [ |
| 99.30 | 82.80 | 96.34 | Cost-sensitive Random Forest classifier | Fine-tuned Google-Net | Chi, J et al. [ |
| 64.17 | 80.69 | 97.33 | Artificial neural network | Fine-tuned ResNet-50 | Moussa O et al. [ |
| 99.83 | 99.74 | 99.75 | SVM | CAPSNET+LBP + HOG | Proposed model |
List of Nomenclature and Acronyms
| Acronyms | Definition |
|---|---|
| ANN | Artificial Neural Network |
| CAD | Computer-aided Diagnosis |
| CAPS-NET | Capsule Network |
| CNNs | convolutional neural networks systems |
| DBN | Deep Belief Network |
| FN | False Negative |
| FP | False Positive |
| HOG | Histogram of Oriented Gradients |
| LBP | Local Binary Patterns |
| PCA | Principal Component Analysis |
| RBF | Radial Basis Function |
| SIFT | Scale Invariant Features Transform |
| SMOTE | Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique |
| SVM | Support Vector Machine |
| TP | True Positive |
| TN | True Negative |