Novel Morphometric Based Classification via Diffeomorphic Based Shape Representation Using Manifold Learning

  • Rachel Sparks
  • Anant Madabhushi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6363)


Morphology of anatomical structures can provide important diagnostic information regarding disease. Implicit features of morphology, such as contour smoothness or perimeter-to-area ratio, have been used in the context of computerized decision support classifiers to aid disease diagnosis. These features are usually specific to the domain and application (e.g. margin irregularity is a predictor of malignant breast lesions on DCE-MRI). In this paper we present a framework for extracting Diffeomorphic Based Similarity (DBS) features to capture subtle morphometric differences between shapes that may not be captured by implicit features. Object morphology is represented using the medial axis model and objects are compared by determining correspondences between medial axis models using a cluster-based diffeomorphic registration scheme. To visualize and classify morphometric differences, a manifold learning scheme (Graph Embedding) is employed to identify nonlinear dependencies between medial axis model similarity and calculate DBS. We evaluated our DBS on two clinical problems discriminating: (a) different Gleason grades of prostate cancer using gland morphology on a set of 102 images, and (b) benign and malignant lesions on 44 breast DCE-MRI studies. Precision-recall curves demonstrate DBS features are better able to classify shapes belonging to the same class compared to implicit features. A support vector machine (SVM) classifier is trained to distinguish between different classes utilizing DBS. SVM accuracy was 83 ±4.47 % for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions on breast DCE-MRI and over 80% in distinguishing between intermediate Gleason grades of prostate cancer on digitized histology.


Support Vector Machine Medial Axis Gleason Grade Query Object Manifold Learn 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Agner, S., Soman, S., Libfeld, E., McDonald, M., Thomas, K., Englander, S., Rosen, M., Chin, D., Nosher, J., Madabhushi, A.: Textural kinetics: A novel dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE)- MRI feature for breast lesion classification. Journal of Digital Imaging (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein, J., Allsbrook, W., Amin, M., Egevad, L.: The 2005 international society of urological pathology (isup) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 29, 1228–1242 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madabhushi, A., Doyle, S., Lee, G., Basavanhally, A., Monaco, J., Masters, S., Tomaszweski, J., Feldman, M.: Review: Integrated diagnostics: a conceptual framework with examples. CCLM (2010) (in Press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Monaco, J., Tomaszewski, J., Fledmand, M., Hagemann, I., Moradi, M., Mousavi, P., Boag, A., Davidson, C., Abolmaesumi, P., Madabhushi, A.: High-throughput detection of prostate cancer in histological sections using probabilistic pairwise markov models. MeDIA 14, 617–629 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, H.: A transformation for extracting new descriptors of shape. In: Models for the Perception of Speech and Visual Form, pp. 367–380. MIT Press, Cambridge (1967)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shi, J., Malik, J.: Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans. PAMI 22, 888–905 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Luis-Garcia, R., Deriche, R., Alberola-Lopez, C.: Texture and color segmentation based on the combined use of the structure tensor and the image components. Signal Process. 88, 776–795 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guo, H., Rangarajan, A., Joshi, S.: Diffeomorphic point matching. In: Handbook of Mathematical Models in Computer Vision, pp. 205–219. Springer, US (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose, K., Gurewitz, G., Fox, G.: A deterministic annealing approach to clustering. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 11, 589–594 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Twining, C., Marland, S., Taylor, C.: Measuring geodesic distances on the space of bounded diffeomorphisms. BMVC 2, 847–856 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297 (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Sparks
    • 1
  • Anant Madabhushi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringRutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations