A machine learning approach on multiscale texture analysis for breast microcalcification diagnosis.
Computer-aided diagnosis
Digital mammograms
Feature selection
Haar wavelet transform
Microcalcifications
Minimum eigenvalue algorithm
Random forest
SURF
Journal
BMC bioinformatics
ISSN: 1471-2105
Titre abrégé: BMC Bioinformatics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965194
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Mar 2020
11 Mar 2020
Historique:
entrez:
14
3
2020
pubmed:
14
3
2020
medline:
3
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Screening programs use mammography as primary diagnostic tool for detecting breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnosis of some lesions, such as microcalcifications, is still difficult today for radiologists. In this paper, we proposed an automatic binary model for discriminating tissue in digital mammograms, as support tool for the radiologists. In particular, we compared the contribution of different methods on the feature selection process in terms of the learning performances and selected features. For each ROI, we extracted textural features on Haar wavelet decompositions and also interest points and corners detected by using Speeded Up Robust Feature (SURF) and Minimum Eigenvalue Algorithm (MinEigenAlg). Then a Random Forest binary classifier is trained on a subset of a sub-set features selected by two different kinds of feature selection techniques, such as filter and embedded methods. We tested the proposed model on 260 ROIs extracted from digital mammograms of the BCDR public database. The best prediction performance for the normal/abnormal and benign/malignant problems reaches a median AUC value of 98.16% and 92.08%, and an accuracy of 97.31% and 88.46%, respectively. The experimental result was comparable with related work performance. The best performing result obtained with embedded method is more parsimonious than the filter one. The SURF and MinEigen algorithms provide a strong informative content useful for the characterization of microcalcification clusters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Screening programs use mammography as primary diagnostic tool for detecting breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnosis of some lesions, such as microcalcifications, is still difficult today for radiologists. In this paper, we proposed an automatic binary model for discriminating tissue in digital mammograms, as support tool for the radiologists. In particular, we compared the contribution of different methods on the feature selection process in terms of the learning performances and selected features.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For each ROI, we extracted textural features on Haar wavelet decompositions and also interest points and corners detected by using Speeded Up Robust Feature (SURF) and Minimum Eigenvalue Algorithm (MinEigenAlg). Then a Random Forest binary classifier is trained on a subset of a sub-set features selected by two different kinds of feature selection techniques, such as filter and embedded methods. We tested the proposed model on 260 ROIs extracted from digital mammograms of the BCDR public database. The best prediction performance for the normal/abnormal and benign/malignant problems reaches a median AUC value of 98.16% and 92.08%, and an accuracy of 97.31% and 88.46%, respectively. The experimental result was comparable with related work performance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The best performing result obtained with embedded method is more parsimonious than the filter one. The SURF and MinEigen algorithms provide a strong informative content useful for the characterization of microcalcification clusters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32164532
doi: 10.1186/s12859-020-3358-4
pii: 10.1186/s12859-020-3358-4
pmc: PMC7069158
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
91Références
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014 Oct;116(3):226-35
pubmed: 24909786
BMC Med Imaging. 2012 Jul 24;12:22
pubmed: 22827803
Cancer. 2018 Jul 1;124(13):2785-2800
pubmed: 29786848
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015 Apr;62(4):1203-14
pubmed: 25546849
Med Phys. 2009 Jun;36(6):2052-68
pubmed: 19610294
Clin Imaging. 2013 May-Jun;37(3):420-6
pubmed: 23153689
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Aug 18;102(16):1224-37
pubmed: 20616353
BMC Med Imaging. 2014 Mar 25;14:12
pubmed: 24666766
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):W292-5
pubmed: 22358028
Comput Biol Med. 2012 Sep;42(9):898-905
pubmed: 22871899
Breast Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 20;12 Suppl 4:S10
pubmed: 21172072
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 15;9(9):e107580
pubmed: 25222610
Biomed Eng Online. 2012 Dec 19;11:96
pubmed: 23253202
Semin Nucl Med. 2011 Nov;41(6):449-62
pubmed: 21978447
J Med Syst. 2012 Aug;36(4):2259-69
pubmed: 21479624
Bioinformatics. 2007 Oct 1;23(19):2507-17
pubmed: 17720704