| Literature DB >> 36262985 |
G Ramkumar1, P Bhuvaneswari2, R Radhika3, S Saranya4, S Vijayalakshmi5, M Karpagam6, Florin Wilfred7.
Abstract
Biological tissues may be studied using photoacoustic (PA) spectroscopy, which can yield a wealth of physical and chemical data. However, it is really challenging to directly analyse these tissues because of a lot of data. Data mining techniques can get around this issue. In order to diagnose prostate cancer via PA spectrum assessment, this work describes the machine learning (ML) technique implementation, such as supervised classification and unsupervised hierarchical clustering. The collected PA signals were preprocessed using Pwelch method, and the features are extracted using two methods such as hierarchical cluster and correlation assessment. The extracted features are classified using four ML-methods, namely, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes (NB), decision tree C4.5, and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA). Furthermore, as these components alter throughout the progression of prostate cancer, this study focuses on the composition and distribution of collagen, lipids, and haemoglobin. In diseased tissues compared to normal tissues, there is a stronger correlation between the various chemical components ultrasonic power spectra, suggesting that the microstructural dispersion in tumour tissues has been more uniform. The accuracy of several classifiers used in cancer tissue diagnosis was greater than 94% for all four methods, which is effective than that of benchmark medical methods. Thus, the method shows significant promise for the noninvasive, early detection of severe prostate cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36262985 PMCID: PMC9553468 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6862083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Prostate cancer identification process.
Outcome of power study predicted on 1370 nm PA power spectrum slopes.
| AP | TP |
|
|
|
|
| Alpha |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.71 | 0.7 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 12 | 12 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.80 | 0.8 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 14 | 14 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.92 | 0.9 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 18 | 18 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.76 | 0.7 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 8 | 8 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
| 0.81 | 0.8 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 9 | 9 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
| 0.91 | 0.9 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 12 | 12 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
Note. AP, actual power; TP, targeted power.
Outcome of power study predicted on 1210 nm PA power spectrum slopes.
| AP | TP |
|
|
| N1 | N2 | Alpha |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.72 | 0.7 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 25 | 25 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.81 | 0.8 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 28 | 28 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.90 | 0.9 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 35 | 35 | 0.01 | 0.1 |
| 0.71 | 0.7 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 14 | 14 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
| 0.80 | 0.8 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 17 | 17 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
| 0.90 | 0.9 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 25 | 25 | 0.05 | 0.1 |
Note. AP, actual power; TP, targeted power.
Radical prostatectomy's 97 samples from whole prostate-25 cases.
| Prostate | PA-measurement | PP |
| WPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | B |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | B |
| 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | B |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | B |
| 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | B |
| 6 | 5 | 4 | 1 | B |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | B |
| 8 | 5 | 0 | 5 | C |
| 9 | 4 | 3 | 1 | B |
| 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | B |
| 11 | 4 | 2 | 2 | B |
| 12 | 6 | 0 | 6 | C |
| 13 | 3 | 1 | 2 | B |
| 14 | 4 | 3 | 1 | B |
| 15 | 6 | 4 | 2 | B |
| 16 | 3 | 0 | 3 | C |
| 17 | 6 | 4 | 2 | B |
| 18 | 3 | 1 | 2 | B |
| 19 | 2 | 1 | 1 | B |
| 20 | 3 | 2 | 1 | B |
| 21 | 5 | 0 | 5 | C |
| 22 | 4 | 3 | 1 | B |
| 23 | 3 | 2 | 1 | B |
| 24 | 2 | 1 | 1 | B |
| 25 | 4 | 2 | 2 | B |
| Total | 97 | 47 | 50 |
Note. PP: pathologically positive, PN: pathologically negative, WPP: whole prostate pathology, B: aggressive, and C: nonaggressive tissue.
Figure 2Presented framework.
Accumulative prediction outcomes based on frequency selection.
| FSM |
| SFFA (%) | AFFA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All specimens have been completely differentiated from healthy and cancer samples | 2.8 | 92.4 | 95.8 |
| 6.1 | 94.6 | ||
| 8.1 | 91.3 | ||
| 9.9 | 96.5 | ||
| 12.9 | 95.4 | ||
| 15.4 | 92.8 | ||
| 16.1 | 95.25 | ||
| 18.3 | 95.7 |
Note. FSM: frequency selection method, F: frequency, SFFA: single frequency forecasting accuracy, and AFFA: assembled frequency forecasting accuracy.
Overall outcome.
| Method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 93.4 | 94.4 | 96.8 |
| NB | 95.1 | 92.9 | 95.2 |
| C4.5 | 92.8 | 91.5 | 97.3 |
Figure 3ML-methods overall outcome.
Comparison of accuracy.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| US | 71.7 |
| MRI | 80 |
| LDA (PA) | 95.8 |
| C4.5 (PA) | 97.3 |
| NB (PA) | 95.2 |
| SVM (PA) | 96.8 |
Figure 4Accuracy comparison.