| Literature DB >> 35909482 |
Pooja Chopra1, N Junath2, Sitesh Kumar Singh3, Shakir Khan4, R Sugumar5, Mithun Bhowmick6.
Abstract
An algorithm framework based on CycleGAN and an upgraded dual-path network (DPN) is suggested to address the difficulties of uneven staining in pathological pictures and difficulty of discriminating benign from malignant cells. CycleGAN is used for color normalization in pathological pictures to tackle the problem of uneven staining. However, the resultant detection model is ineffective. By overlapping the images, the DPN uses the addition of small convolution, deconvolution, and attention mechanisms to enhance the model's ability to classify the texture features of pathological images on the BreaKHis dataset. The parameters that are taken into consideration for measuring the accuracy of the proposed model are false-positive rate, false-negative rate, recall, precision, and F1 score. Several experiments are carried out over the selected parameters, such as making comparisons between benign and malignant classification accuracy under different normalization methods, comparison of accuracy of image level and patient level using different CNN models, correlating the correctness of DPN68-A network with different deep learning models and other classification algorithms at all magnifications. The results thus obtained have proved that the proposed model DPN68-A network can effectively classify the benign and malignant breast cancer pathological images at various magnifications. The proposed model also is able to better assist the pathologists in diagnosing the patients by synthesizing the images of different magnifications in the clinical stage.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35909482 PMCID: PMC9334078 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6336700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1CycleGAN structure.
DPN68 network structure.
| Layer | DPN68 network structure |
|---|---|
| Conv1 | 3 × 3, 10, stride 2 |
| 3 × 3 max pool, stride 2 | |
| Conv2 |
|
| Conv3 |
|
| Conv4 |
|
| Conv5 |
|
| Global average pooling layer, 1000-dimensional fully connected layer, softmax classifier |
Figure 2Block structure of DPN.
Figure 3Attention mechanism structure.
Figure 4CycleGAN and DPN model.
Figure 5CycleGAN pathological image color normalization model.
DPN68-A network structure.
| Layer | DPN68 network structure |
|---|---|
| Conv1 | 1 × 1, 10, stride 1 |
| Conv2~Conv5 | Same as DPN68 |
| Deconvolution layer | Deconv |
| Attenuation layer | Global pooling, fc, ReLu, fc, sigmoid, scale |
Number of benign and malignant tumor images with different magnifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 645 | 1365 | 1986 |
| 150 | 654 | 1498 | 2048 |
| 250 | 687 | 1354 | 2035 |
| 500 | 535 | 1289 | 1868 |
Figure 6Overlapping cutting of pathological images.
Benign and malignant section distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Data1 | 23564 | 22789 | 46218 |
| Data2 | 16658 | 22351 | 38451 |
| Data3 | 17894 | 20846 | 38165 |
Benign and malignant classification comparison.
| Method | FPR | FNR | Recall | Precision |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No normalization | 23.9 | 9.2 | 91.21 | 79.12 | 84.35 | 84.22 |
| Normalization by Vahadane's method | 14.5 | 5.3 | 96.14 | 88.64 | 92.41 | 92.38 |
| CycleGAN normalization | 11.7 | 4.6 | 95.37 | 89.83 | 93.71 | 93.16 |
Accuracy comparison of different CNN models.
| Model | FPR | FNR | Recall | Precision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | 37.11 | 8.19 | 80.25 | 83.01 |
| AlexNet | 30.59 | 12.60 | 83.49 | 85.81 |
| GoogLeNet | 31.78 | 11.04 | 84.71 | 84.48 |
| ResNet34 | 20.98 | 8.97 | 88.91 | 91.41 |
| ResNet101 | 21.81 | 9.10 | 87.46 | 88.94 |
Accuracy comparison of improved classification using DPN68 network.
| The Internet | FPR | FNR | Recall | Precision |
|
|
| AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPN68 | 13.84 | 7.1 | 94.12 | 95.15 | 94.02 | 92.15 | 91.94 | 94.12 |
| DPN68+small convolution | 9.98 | 6.8 | 92.94 | 93.64 | 93.87 | 91.94 | 92.48 | 93.96 |
| DPN68-A | 8.10 | 5.9 | 93.45 | 95.89 | 95.64 | 93.18 | 93.74 | 95.03 |
Figure 7Accuracy comparison of improved classification using DPN68 network.
Figure 8ROC curves of network.
Figure 9Comparison results of DPN68-A and other classification algorithms.
DPN68-A results at all magnifications.
|
| FPR% | FNR% | Recall% | Precision% |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 8.10 | 7.15 | 94.41 | 97.87 | 95.74 | 94.11 | 95.11 |
| 150 | 7.05 | 5.65 | 95.01 | 98.61 | 97.21 | 93.94 | 95.31 |
| 250 | 8.16 | 3.45 | 94.89 | 95.94 | 96.48 | 94.12 | 95.17 |
| 500 | 7.95 | 5.59 | 93.47 | 98.10 | 95.32 | 95.01 | 94.67 |
Figure 10Comparison results of DPN68.