Advertisement

Effect of Image View for Mammogram Mass Classification – An Extreme Learning Based Approach

  • Sk. Md. ObaidullahEmail author
  • Sajib Ahmed
  • Teresa Gonçalves
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10986)

Abstract

Mammogram images are broadly categorized into two types: carniocaudal (CC) view and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view. In this paper, we study the effect of different image views for mammogram mass classification. For the experiments, we consider a dataset of 328 CC view images and 334 MLO view images (almost equal ratio) from a publicly available film mammogram image dataset [3]. First, features are extracted using a novel radon-wavelet based image descriptor. Then an extreme learning machine (ELM) based classification technique is applied and the performance of five different ELM kernels are compared: sigmoidal, sine, triangular basis, hard limiter and radial basis function. Performances are reported in terms of three important statistical measures namely, sensitivity or true positive rate (TPR), specificity or false negative rate (SPC) and recognition accuracy (ACC). Our experimental outcome for the present setup is two-fold: (i) CC view performs better then MLO for mammogram mass classification, (ii) hard limiter is the best ELM kernel for this problem.

Keywords

Breast cancer Mammogram mass classification Image view Image descriptors Extreme learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first and second author of this paper are thankful to Erasmus Leader project funded by European Commission for their post-doctoral and doctoral research study at University of Évora, Portugal. The first author also acknowledges his employer Aliah University for granting study leave for post-doctoral research.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Arevalo, J., González, F.A., Ramos-Pollán, R., Oliveira, J.L., Lopez, M.A.G.: Convolutional neural networks for mammography mass lesion classification. In: 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 797–800. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arevalo, J., González, F.A., Ramos-Pollán, R., Oliveira, J.L., Lopez, M.A.G.: Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 127, 248–257 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belkasim, S.O., Shridhar, M., Ahmadi, M.: Pattern recognition with moment invariants: a comparative study and new results. Pattern Recognit. 24(12), 1117–1138 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constantinidis, A., Fairhurst, M.C., Rahman, A.F.R.: A new multi-expert decision combination algorithm and its application to the detection of circumscribed masses in digital mammograms. Pattern Recognit. 34(8), 1527–1537 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deans, S.: Applications of the Radon Transform, p. 2. Wiley, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhawan, A.P., Chitre, Y., Kaiser-Bonasso, C.: Analysis of mammographic microcalcifications using gray-level image structure features. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 15(3), 246–259 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dua, S., Singh, H., Thompson, H.W.: Associative classification of mammograms using weighted rules. Expert. Syst. Appl. 36(5), 9250–9259 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eltoukhy, M.M., Faye, I., Samir, B.B.: A comparison of wavelet and curvelet for breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram. Comput. Biol. Med. 40(4), 384–391 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferreira, C.B.R., Borges, D.L.: Analysis of mammogram classification using a wavelet transform decomposition. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 24(7), 973–982 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haralick, R.M., Shanmugam, K., et al.: Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 6, 610–621 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, G.B.: An insight into extreme learning machines: random neurons, random features and kernels. Cogn. Comput. 6(3), 376–390 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, G.B., Bai, Z., Kasun, L.L.C., Vong, C.M.: Local receptive fields based extreme learning machine. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 10(2), 18–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, G.B., Zhou, H., Ding, X., Zhang, R.: Extreme learning machine for regression and multiclass classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B (Cybern.) 42(2), 513–529 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mallat, S.G.: A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 11(7), 674–693 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazo, C., Alegre, E., Trujillo, M., González-Castro, V.: Tissues classification of the cardiovascular system using texture descriptors. In: Valdés Hernández, M., González-Castro, V. (eds.) MIUA 2017. CCIS, vol. 723, pp. 123–132. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60964-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moura, D.C., López, M.A.G.: An evaluation of image descriptors combined with clinical data for breast cancer diagnosis. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 8(4), 561–574 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Obaidullah, S.M., Ahmed, S., Goncalves, T., Rato, L.: RMID: a novel and efficient image descriptor for mammogram mass classification. In: 3rd Conference on Information Technology, Systems Research and Computational Physics (2018, accepted)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Obaidullah, S.M., Bose, A., Mukherjee, H., Santosh, K., Das, N., Roy, K.: Extreme learning machine for handwritten indic script identification in multiscript documents. J. Electron. Imaging 27(5), 051214 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    O’Neil, A., Shepherd, M., Beveridge, E., Goatman, K.: A comparison of texture features versus deep learning for image classification in interstitial lung disease. In: Valdés Hernández, M., González-Castro, V. (eds.) MIUA 2017. CCIS, vol. 723, pp. 743–753. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60964-5_65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pisano, E.D., et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246(2), 376–383 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramos-Pollán, R., et al.: Discovering mammography-based machine learning classifiers for breast cancer diagnosis. J. Med. Syst. 36(4), 2259–2269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rashed, E.A., Ismail, I.A., Zaki, S.I.: Multiresolution mammogram analysis in multilevel decomposition. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 28(2), 286–292 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahiner, B., Chan, H.P., Petrick, N., Helvie, M.A., Hadjiiski, L.M.: Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Med. Phys. 28(7), 1455–1465 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skaane, P., Hofvind, S., Skjennald, A.: Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244(3), 708–717 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang, J., Deng, C., Huang, G.B.: Extreme learning machine for multilayer perceptron. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 27(4), 809–821 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu, S., Guan, L.: A CAD system for the automatic detection of clustered microcalcifications in digitized mammogram films. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 19(2), 115–126 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sk. Md. Obaidullah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sajib Ahmed
    • 1
  • Teresa Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of ÉvoraEvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations