| Literature DB >> 36129596 |
Sujata Ghatak1,2, Satyajit Chakraborti2, Mousumi Gupta3, Soumi Dutta4, Soumen Kumar Pati2, Abhishek Bhattacharya2.
Abstract
The current ongoing trend of dimension detection of medical images is one of the challenging areas which facilitates several improvements in accurate measuring of clinical imaging based on fractal dimension detection methodologies. For medical diagnosis of any infection, detection of dimension is one of the major challenges due to the fractal shape of the medical object. Significantly improved outcome indicates that the performance of fractal dimension detection techniques is better than that of other state-of-the-art methods to extract diagnostically significant information from clinical image. Among the fractal dimension detection methodologies, fractal geometry has developed an efficient tool in medical image investigation. In this paper, a novel methodology of fractal dimension detection of medical images is proposed based on the concept of box counting technique to evaluate the fractal dimension. The proposed method has been evaluated and compared to other state-of-the-art approaches, and the results of the proposed algorithm graphically justify the mathematical derivation of the box counting approach in terms of Hurst exponent.Entities:
Keywords: Biomedical images; Box counting; Fractal dimension; Magnetic resonance; Region of interest; Texture analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36129596 PMCID: PMC9490715 DOI: 10.1007/s12010-022-04108-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Biochem Biotechnol ISSN: 0273-2289 Impact factor: 3.094
Fig. 1Displays the box counting technique for the Koch Curve
Fig. 2Pictorial view of Sierpinski triangle
Fig. 3Example 1 of covid chest X-ray
Fig. 4Example 2 of covid chest X-ray
Fig. 5Block diagram of the proposed methodology
Fig. 6Example 1 of binary image of covid 19 chest X-ray
Fig. 7Example 2 of binary image of covid 19 chest X-ray
Scaling factor, number of boxes and corresponding dimension for each scaling factor of Fig. 4
| Scaling factor | Number of boxes | Fractal dimension | Hurst exponent (H) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | -2 |
| 1/2 | 3 | 1.58 | 0.5 |
| 1/3 | 6 | 1.63 | 0.4 |
| 1/4 | 10 | 1.66 | 0.4 |
| 1/5 | 14 | 1.64 | 0.4 |
| 1/6 | 19 | 1.64 | 0.4 |
| 1/7 | 24 | 1.63 | 0.4 |
| 1/8 | 29 | 1.62 | 0.4 |
| 1/9 | 44 | 1.72 | 0.3 |
| 1/10 | 40 | 1.60 | 0.4 |
| 1/181 | 6407 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/182 | 6473 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/183 | 6542 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/184 | 6609 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/185 | 6676 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/186 | 6745 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/187 | 6813 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/188 | 6882 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/189 | 6952 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/190 | 7020 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/191 | 7091 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/192 | 7161 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/193 | 7232 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/194 | 7304 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/195 | 7375 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/196 | 7447 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/197 | 7519 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/198 | 7592 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/199 | 7664 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/200 | 7737 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/201 | 7810 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/202 | 7884 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/203 | 7958 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
| 1/204 | 8033 | 1.69 | 0.4 |
Scaling factor, number of boxes and corresponding dimension for each scaling factor of Fig. 3
| Scaling factor | Number of boxes | Fractal dimension | Hurst exponent (H) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | -2 |
| 1/2 | 3 | 1.58 | 0.4 |
| 1/3 | 6 | 1.63 | 0.3 |
| 1/4 | 10 | 1.66 | 0.3 |
| 1/5 | 14 | 1.64 | 0.3 |
| 1/6 | 18 | 1.61 | 0.3 |
| 1/7 | 22 | 1.59 | 0.4 |
| 1/8 | 27 | 1.58 | 0.4 |
| 1/9 | 31 | 1.56 | 0.4 |
| 1/10 | 36 | 1.56 | 0.4 |
| 1/199 | 2352 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/200 | 2373 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/201 | 2394 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/202 | 2415 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/203 | 2436 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/204 | 2457 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/205 | 2478 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/206 | 2499 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/207 | 2520 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/208 | 2541 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/209 | 2563 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/210 | 2585 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/211 | 2608 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/212 | 2630 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/213 | 2653 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/214 | 2675 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/215 | 2698 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/216 | 2721 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/217 | 2743 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/218 | 2766 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/219 | 2788 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/220 | 2811 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/221 | 2833 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
| 1/222 | 2853 | 1.47 | 0.5 |
Fig. 8Graphical representation of the dimension
Fig. 9Graphical representation of the dimension
Comparative analysis of the proposed method and other methods
| Size of area | Section | Section | Section | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB | H | DB | B | DB | H | |
| Proposed approach | ||||||
| 120 x 150 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.39 | 1.3 | 0.5 |
| 110 x 130 | 1.6 | 0.36 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 0.6 |
| 110 x 110 | 1.6 | 0.39 | 1.5 | 0.41 | 1.2 | 0.5 |
| 100 x 100 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.41 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| 80 x 80 | 1.4 | 0.42 | 1.5 | 0.38 | 1.5 | 0.41 |
| 50 x 50 | 1.6 | 0.38 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.37 |
| state-of-the-art approach described in [ | ||||||
| 120 x 150 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 |
| 110 x 130 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.7 |
| 110 x 110 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| 100 x 100 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 |
| 80 x 80 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| 50 x 50 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 0.5 |
Execution time analysis for different sizes of the input image
| Image name | Size of the image | Time taken |
|---|---|---|
| A | 56*56 | 0.55 |
| 112*112 | 0.66 | |
| 256*256 | 0.78 | |
| 512*512 | 0.99 | |
| 1024*1024 | 1.07 | |
| B | 56*56 | 0.57 |
| 112*112 | 0.68 | |
| 256*256 | 0.8 | |
| 512*512 | 1.02 | |
| 1024*1024 | 1.09 | |
| C | 56*56 | 0.55 |
| 112*112 | 0.66 | |
| 256*256 | 0.78 | |
| 512*512 | 0.99 | |
| 1024*1024 | 1.07 |
Fig. 10Performance analysis of the images w.r.t size