Advertisement

Machine Learning Methods for Classifying Mammographic Regions Using the Wavelet Transform and Radiomic Texture Features

  • Jaider Stiven Rincón
  • Andrés E. Castro-Ospina
  • Fabián R. Narváez
  • Gloria M. Díaz
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 895)

Abstract

Automatic detection and classification of lesions in mammography remains one of the most important and challenging problems in the development of computer-aided diagnosis systems. Several machine learning approaches have been proposed for supporting the detection and classification of mammographic findings, and are used as computational tools during different diagnosis process by the radiologists. However, the effectiveness of these approaches depends on the accuracy of the feature representation and classification techniques. In this paper, a radiomic strategy based on texture features is explored for identifying abnormalities in mammographies. For doing that, a complete study of five feature extraction approaches, ten selection methods, and five classification models was carried out for identifying findings contained in regions of interest extracted from mammography. The proposed strategy starts with a region extraction process. Some square regions of interest (ROI) were manually extracted from the Mammographic Image Analysis Society (miniMIAS) database. Then, each ROI was decomposed into different resolution levels by using a Wavelet transform approach, and a set of radiomic features based on texture information was computed. Finally, feature selection algorithms and machine learning models were applied to decide whether the ROI undergoing analysis contains or not a mammographic abnormality. The obtained results showed that radiomic texture descriptors extracted from wavelet detail coefficients improved the performance obtained by radiomic features extracted from the original image.

Keywords

Breast cancer ROI classification Machine learning methods Radiomics 

References

  1. 1.
    Beura, S., Majhi, B., Dash, R.: Mammogram classification using two dimensional discrete wavelet transform and gray-level co-occurrence matrix for detection of breast cancer. Neurocomputing 154, 1–14 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.12.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erickson, B.J., Korfiatis, P., Akkus, Z., Kline, T.L.: Machine learning for medical imaging. Radiographics 37(2), 505–515 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gillies, R.J., Kinahan, P.E., Hricak, H.: Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278(2), 563–577 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Görgel, P., Sertbas, A., Ucan, O.N.: Mammographical mass detection and classification using local seed region growing-spherical wavelet transform (LSRG-SWT) hybrid scheme. Comput. Biol. Med. 43(6), 765–774 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2013.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haralick, R., Shanmugan, K., Dinstein, I.: Textural features for image classification (1973).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jona, J.B.: A hybrid swarm optimization approach for feature set reduction in digital mammograms. WSEAS Trans. Inf. Sci. Appl. 9(11), 340–349 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambin, P., et al.: Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48(4), 441–446 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, A.Y., et al.: Inter-reader variability in the use of bi-rads descriptors for suspicious findings on diagnostic mammography: a multi-institution study of 10 academic radiologists. Acad. Radiol. 24(1), 60–66 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, J., et al.: Feature selection: a data perspective (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3136625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narváez, F., Díaz, G., Poveda, C., Romero, E.: An automatic BI-RADS description of mammographic masses by fusing multiresolution features. Expert. Syst. Appl. 74, 82–95 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ojala, T., Pietikainen, M., Harwood, D.: Performance evaluation of texture measures with classification based on Kullback discrimination of distributions. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. 1, pp. 582–585 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.1994.576366
  12. 12.
    Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P., Aerts, H.J.: Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–11 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart, B.W., Wild, C.P.: World cancer report 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Subashini, T.S., Ramalingam, V., Palanivel, S.: Automated assessment of breast tissue density in digital mammograms. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 114(1), 33–43 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2009.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suckling, J., et al.: The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. In: Experta Medica, International Congress Series, vol. 1069, pp. 375–378, January 1994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, D., Shi, L., Heng, P.A.: Automatic detection of breast cancers in mammograms using structured support vector machines. Neurocomputing 72(13–15), 3296–3302 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2009.02.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grupo de Investigación Automática, Electrónica y Ciencias ComputacionalesInstituto Tecnológico MetropolitanoMedellínColombia
  2. 2.Grupo de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Biomecatrónica - GIByBUniversidad Politécnica SalesianaQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations