Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting breast cancer biopsy outcomes from BI-RADS findings using random forests with chi-square and MI features

  • 1211: AIoT Support and Applications with Multimedia
  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To look for early breast cancer signs and indications, mammography screening is one of the best approaches available. Screening mammograms are the most commonly recognized procedure and remain the gold standard for early breast cancer screening. But many times, a relatively low positive predictive rate of breast biopsy demonstrated by this diagnostic technique leads to unneeded biopsies for abnormal findings that are ultimately proven benign in many cases. Random Forest (RF)—which evolves from Decision Trees (DTs)—is one of the most practical and powerful ensemble learning concepts (or meta estimators). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) is developed as a standardized system or tool for reporting breast mammograms. This technique is used to locate unusual findings into groups. In this study, the RF classifier with Chi-Square (χ2) and Mutual Information (MI) procedures of relevant Feature Selection (FS) has been applied successfully, in an attempt to predict cancer biopsy outcomes from BI-RAD findings and the patient’s age. For validation purposes, the UCI Mammographic Mass dataset has been used and assessed using accuracy, AUC, and several other performance criteria through a 10-fold CV approach. The prediction findings from the proposed method were very encouraging (84.70% accuracy and AUC 0.9023). Similarly, the proposed system gave better results in terms of MCC and F1-score. The results were directly compared with the RF classifiers and other state-of-the-art classification methods. This comparative analysis indicates that the proposed model is superior in terms of various efficiency indicators to the RF classifier and all standard models used in the study. These findings also confirm that the χ2 and MI FS approaches correctly as well as efficiently obtained the relevant and discriminating feature subset. The result also points out that the suggested approach is a comparable approach to different classification models present in the relevant literature. It is an advantageous, practical, and sound method to predict cancer biopsy outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. C. of Radiology (ACR). (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (bi-rads atlas). reston, va: © american college of radiology.

  2. Amit Y, Geman D (1997) Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Comput 9(7):1545–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE Jr (1995) Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on bi-rads standardized lexicon. Radiology 196(3):817–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bakirarar B, ˙Kar I, Gökmen D, Elhan AH, Genç V (2019) The prediction of breast biopsy outcomes using two data mining algorithms based on parameter variations. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Biostatistics 11(2)

  5. Bethapudi P, Reddy ES, Varma KV (2015) Classification of breast cancer using gini index based fuzzy supervised learning in quest decision tree algorithm. International Journal of Computer Applications 975:8887

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bhat VH, Rao PG, Krishna S, Shenoy PD, Venugopal K, Patnaik LM (2011) An efficient framework for prediction in healthcare data using soft computing techniques, in International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications. Springer, pp. 522–532.

  7. Bilska-Wolak AO, Floyd Jr CE (2001) Investigating different similarity measures for a case-based reasoning classifier to predict breast cancer, in Medical Imaging 2001: Image Processing, vol. 4322. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 1862–1866

  8. Bilska-Wolak AO, Floyd CE Jr (2002) Development and evaluation of a case-based reasoning classifier for prediction of breast biopsy outcome with bi-rads™ lexicon. Med Phys 29(9):2090–2100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24(2):123–140

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Orsi C, Bassett L, Feig S et al (2018) Breast imaging reporting and data system (bi-rads). Breast Imaging. In: Lee CI, Lehman CD, Bassett LW (eds) . Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dua C, Dheeru, Graff (2019) UCI machine learning repository. [Online]. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

  13. Elsayad AM (2010) Predicting the severity of breast masses with ensemble of bayesian classifiers. J Comput Sci 6(5):576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elter M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wittenberg T (2007) The prediction of breast cancer biopsy outcomes using two cad approaches that both emphasize an intelligible decision process. Med Phys 34(11):4164–4172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eltieb MA et al (2018) A comparative study of machine learning algorithms to predict Brest cancer. Sudan University of Science & Technology, Ph.D. dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer E, Lo J, Markey M (2004) Bayesian networks of bi-rads/spl trade/descriptors for breast lesion classification, in The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 2. IEEE, pp. 3031–3034.

  17. Floyd CE Jr, Lo JY, Tourassi GD (2000) Case-based reasoning computer algorithm that uses mammographic findings for breast biopsy decisions. Am J Roentgenol 175(5):1347–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gastounioti A, McCarthy AM, Pantalone L, Synnestvedt M, Kontos D, Conant EF (2019) Effect of mammographic screening modality on breast density assessment: digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 291(2):320–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Halawani S, Alhaddad M, Ahmad A (2012) A study of digital mammograms by using clustering algorithms

  20. Hassim YMM, Ghazali R (2015) Improving functional link neural network learning scheme for mammographic classification, in International Workshop on Neural Networks. Springer, pp. 213–221.

  21. Heine JJ, Deans SR, Cullers DK, Stauduhar R, Clarke LP (1997) Multiresolution statistical analysis of high-resolution digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16(5):503–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ho TK (1995) Random decision forests. Proceedings of 3rd international conference on document analysis and recognition 1. IEEE:278–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang M-L, Hung Y-H, Lee W-M, Li R, Wang T-H (2012) Usage of casebased reasoning, neural network and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system classification techniques in breast cancer dataset classification diagnosis. J Med Syst 36(2):407–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ibrikci T, Karabulut EM, Uwisengeyimana JD (2016) Meta learning on small biomedical datasets, in Information Science and Applications (ICISA) 2016. Springer, pp. 933–939.

  25. Karssemeijer N (1993) Adaptive noise equalization and recognition of microcalcification clusters in mammograms. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 7(06):1357–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaushik D, Kaur K (2016) Application of data mining for high accuracy prediction of breast tissue biopsy results, in 2016 Third International Conference on Digital Information Processing, Data Mining, and Wireless Communications (DIPDMWC). IEEE, pp. 40–45.

  27. Kaya M, Yıldız O, Bilge HS (2013) Breast cancer diagnosis based on naïve bayes machine learning classifier with knn missing data imputation. Global Journal on Technology 4(2)

  28. Kharya S, Agrawal S, Soni S (2014) Using bayesian belief networks for prognosis & diagnosis of breast cancer. IJARCCE 3:5423–5427

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kozachenko L, Leonenko NN (1987) Sample estimate of the entropy of a random vector. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 23(2):9–16

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Kraskov A, Stögbauer H, Grassberger P (2004) Estimating mutual information. Physical review E 69(6):066138

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar GR, Ramachandra G, Nagamani K (2014) An efficient feature selection system to integrating svm with genetic algorithm for large medical datasets. Int J 4(2):272–277

    Google Scholar 

  32. B. Lairenjam and S. K. Wasan (2009) Neural network with classification based on multiple association rule for classifying mammographic data, in International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning. Springer, pp. 465–476.

  33. Lairenjam B, Wasan SK (2010) Naïve bayes associative classification of mammographic data, in 2010 International Conference on Educational and Network Technology. IEEE, pp. 276–281.

  34. Lairenjam B, Wasan SK (2010) A note on analysis of mammography data. Int J Open Problems Compt Math 3(5)

  35. Liberman N (2017) Decision trees and random forests, 01 2017. [Online]. Available: https://towardsdatascience.com/decision-trees-and-random-forests-df0c3 123f991

  36. Liberman L, Menell JH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (bi-rads). Radiologic Clinics 40(3):409–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ludwig SA (2010) Prediction of breast cancer biopsy outcomes using a distributed genetic programming approach, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium, pp. 694–699.

  38. Luo S-T, Cheng B-W (2012) Diagnosing breast masses in digital mammography using feature selection and ensemble methods. J Med Syst 36(2):569–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Malmartel A, Tron A, Caulliez S (2019) Accuracy of clinical breast examination’s abnormalities for breast cancer screening: cross-sectional study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 237:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Markey MK, Lo JY, Vargas-Voracek R, Tourassi GD, Floyd CE Jr (2002) Perceptron error surface analysis: a case study in breast cancer diagnosis. Comput Biol Med 32(2):99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mokhtar SA, Elsayad A et al. (2013) Predicting the severity of breast masses with data mining methods, arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.7057

  42. Muši’c L, Gabelji’c N (2019) Predicting the severity of a mammographic tumor using an artificial neural network, in International Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering. Springer, pp. 775–778.

  43. Nguyen TT, Tsoy Y (2017) A kernel pls based classification method with missing data handling. Stat Pap 58(1):211–225

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Nilashi M, Ibrahim O, Ahmadi H, Shahmoradi L (2017) A knowledge-based system for breast cancer classification using fuzzy logic method. Telematics Inform 34(4):133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nithya R, Santhi B (2015) Decision tree classifiers for mass classification. International Journal of Signal and Imaging Systems Engineering 8(1–2):39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Novakovic J, Veljovic A (2011) Interpretation of mammograms with rotation forest and pca, in 2011 6th IEEE International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI). IEEE, pp. 571–575.

  47. Nugroho KA, Setiawan NA, Adji TB (2013) Cascade generalization for breast cancer detection, in 2013 International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE). IEEE, pp. 57–61.

  48. Priebe C, Lorey R, Marchette D, Solka J, Rogers G (1994) Nonparametric spatio-temporal change point analysis for early detection in mammography

  49. Rakowski W, Clark M (1998) Do groups of women aged 50 to 75 match the national average mammography rate? Am J Prev Med 15(3):187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rathi V, Aggarwal S (2014) Comparing the performance of ann with fnn on mammography mass data set, in 2014 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC). IEEE, pp. 1307–1314.

  51. Ross BC (2014) Mutual information between discrete and continuous data sets. PloS one 9(2)

  52. Saritas I (2012) Prediction of breast cancer using artificial neural networks. J Med Syst 36(5):2901–2907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sebastiani F (2002) Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 34(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. sklearn.feature selection.chi2. [Online]. Available: https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.chi2.html

  55. sklearn.impute.knnimputer. [Online]. Available: https://scikit-learn.org/stable/ modules/generated/sklearn.impute.KNNImputer.html

  56. sklearn.preprocessing.minmaxscaler. [Online]. Available: https://scikit-learn.org /stable/modules/generated/sklearn.preprocessing. MinMaxScaler.html

  57. Sondakh DE (2017) Data mining for healthcare data: a comparison of neural networks algorithms. Cogito Smart Journal 3(1):10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. The Python Standard Library — Python 3.9.2 documentation [Online]. Available: https://docs.python.org/3.9/library/

  59. Troyanskaya O, Cantor M, Sherlock G, Brown P, Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Botstein D, Altman RB (2001) Missing value estimation methods for dna microarrays. Bioinformatics 17(6):520–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yan Y-T, Zhang Y-P, Zhang Y-W, Du X-Q (2017) A selective neural network ensemble classification for incomplete data. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(5):1513–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zahriah S, Fahmi A, Sharifah Sakinah Syed A, Rabiah A (2017) Imputing missing values in mammography mass dataset: Will it increase classification performance of machine learning algorithms? in Proceeding 8th International Conference on Agricultural, Biological, Environmental and Medical Sciences (ABEMS-2017) Oct. 11–12, 2017 Bali (Indonesia)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, OntarioTech University, Oshawa, Canada

    Sheldon Williamson

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, St. Joseph’s Institute of Technology, OMR, Chennai, India

    K. Vijayakumar

  3. Department of Information Technology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University, Lonere, Maharashtra, India

    Vinod J. Kadam

Authors
  1. Sheldon Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Vijayakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vinod J. Kadam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheldon Williamson.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williamson, S., Vijayakumar, K. & Kadam, V.J. Predicting breast cancer biopsy outcomes from BI-RADS findings using random forests with chi-square and MI features. Multimed Tools Appl 81, 36869–36889 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11114-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11114-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation