Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Supplement 3, pp 7079–7086 | Cite as

Jaw fracture classification using meta heuristic firefly algorithm with multi-layered associative neural networks

  • Mohamed HashemEmail author
  • Azza S. Hassanein


Jaw fracture is one of the common facial injuries in human body. The jaw fracture disease is one of the tenth most injuries in human body. Jaw fracture may result from high physical injuries impacts and medical conditions that weaken the looseness of the teeth, jaw stiffness, swelling and so on. Due to the various symptoms of this disease, diagnosis is difficult at an early stage. Therefore, different machine learning and data mining techniques are used to detect jaw fracture because of the severe effects of the disease. Initially, jaw related data is randomly collected from the patient, which includes information such as the patient name, age, height, weight, osteoporosis risk factors, prediction, fracture level, and so on. After collecting jaw fracture information, unwanted data is discarded by applying normalization techniques; optimized features are then selected using the metaheuristic firefly algorithm. The selected data is then classified using the multi-layer neural network training based on associative neural networks. The classifier then successfully categorizes the abnormal jaw fracture feature. Then, the efficiency of the system is examined with the help of the mean square error rate, precision, recall, and accuracy.


Jaw fracture Jaw stiffness Swelling risk factors Normalization techniques Mean square error rate 



This project was financially supported by Vice Deanship of Research Chairs, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.


  1. 1.
    Naik, A., Tikhe, S., Bhide, S., Kaliyamurthie, K.P., Saravanan, T.: Automatic segmentation of lower jaw and mandibular bone in digital dental panoramic radiographs. Indian J. Sci. Technol. (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Kudale, G.A., Pawar, M.D.: Study and analysis of various edge detection methods for X-ray images. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Appl. (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hao, S., Han, Y., Zhang, J., Ji, Z.: Automatic isolation of carpal-bone in hand X-ray medical image. In: Informatics and Management Science I, pp. 657–662. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lim, S.E., Xing, Y., Chen, Y., Leow, W.K., Howe, T.S., Png, M.A.: Detection of femur and radius fractures in x-ray images. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Advances in Medical Signal and Info. ProGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lum, V.L., Leow, W.K., Chen, Y., Howe, T.S., Png, M.A.: Combining classifiers for bone fracture detection in x-ray images. In: Image Processing, ICIP, IEEE International Conference on, 1, pp. 1–1149. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    He, J., Leow, W., Howe, T.: Hierarchical classifiers for detection of fractures in x-ray images. In: Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns, pp. 962–969. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Khaffaf, H.S., Talib, A.Z., Salam, R.A.: Removing salt-and-pepper noise from binary images of engineering drawings. In: Pattern Recognition, ICPR, 19th International Conference on, p. 1–4. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vijaykumar, V.R., Vanathi, P.T., Kanagasabapathy, P.: Fast and efficient algorithm to remove Gaussian noise in digital images. IAENG International Journal of Computer Science 37(1), 300–302 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Umadevi, N., Geethalakshmi, S.N.: Multiple classification system for fracture detection in human bone x-ray images. In: Computing Communication & Networking Technologies in IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jagapriya, J., Annapoorani, G.: Neural Network based classification for orthopedic conditions diagnosis using grey level co-occurrence probabilities. In: Electronics Computer Technology in IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anu, T.C., Mallikarjunaswamy, M.S., Raman, R.: Detection of bone fracture using image processing methods. Int J. Comput. Appl. (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brannock, E., Weeks, M.: Edge detection using wavelets. In: Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional conference, ACM Southeast Regional Conference, pp. 649–654 (2006).
  14. 14.
    Borra, S., Di Ciaccio, A.: Improving nonparametric regression methods by bagging and boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38(4), 407–420 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryll, R., Gutierrez-Osuna, R., Quek, F.: Attribute bagging: improving accuracy of classifier ensembles by using random feature subsets. Pattern Recogn. 36(6), 1291–1302 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmad S.R., Bakar, A.A., Yaakub, M.R.: Metaheuristic algorithms for feature selection in sentiment analysis. In: Science and Information Conference 2015, London, UK, pp. 222–226, July 28––30 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Syiam, M., El-Aziem, M.A., El-Menshawy, M.: Adagen: adaptive interface agent for x-ray fracture detection. International Journal of Computing & Information Sciences 2(3), 143–148 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Youssefi, B., Mirhassani, M., Wu, J.: Efficient mixed-signal synapse multipliers for multi-layer feed-forward neural networks. In: 2016 IEEE 59th International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), Abu Dhabi, UAE, 16–19 October 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roumi, M: Implementing texture feature extraction algorithms on fpga. Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delfth, Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Zhuo, L., Zheng, J., Li, X., Wang, F., Ai, B., Qian, J.: A genetic algorithm based wrapper feature selection method for classification of Hyperspectral images using support vector machine.
  22. 22.
    Accamma I.V., Suma, H.N., Dakshayini, M.: A genetic algorithm based feature selection technique for classification of multiple-subject fMRI data. In: Advance Computing Conference (IACC), 2015 IEEE International, pp. 948–952 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alexer Firpi, H., Jacob Vogelstein, R.: Particle swarm optimization-based feature selection for cognitive state detection. In; 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Boston, Massachusetts USA, pp. 6556–6559, August 30–September 3, 2011Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., Bapnik, V.: Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46(1–3), 389–422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abadi, A.M., Wutsqa, D.U., Pamungkas, L.R.: Detection of lung cancer using radiograph images enhancement and radial basis function classifier. In: Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI) (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldstein, M., Uchida, S.: A comparative evaluation of unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms for multivariate data. PLoS ONE (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malhotra, P., Vig, L., Shroff, G., Agarwal, P.: Long Short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series. In: ESANN 2015 proceedings, European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning. Bruges (Belgium), 22–24 April 2015, publ., ISBN 978-287587014-8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jadidi, Z., Muthukkumarasamy, V., Sithirasenan, E., Sheikhan, M.: Flow-based anomaly detection using neural network optimized with GSA Algorithm. In: Distributed Computing Systems Workshops in IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, College of Applied Medical SciencesKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Biomedical Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringHelwan UniversityHelwanEgypt
  3. 3.Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Basic SciencesJamia Millia IslamiaNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations