Comparison of PCA and ANOVA for Information Selection of CC and MLO Views in Classification of Mammograms

  • Ricardo de Souza Jacomini
  • Marcelo Zanchetta do Nascimento
  • Rogério Daniel Dantas
  • Rodrigo Pereira Ramos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7435)


In this paper, we present a method for extraction and attribute selection for textural features classification using the fusion of information from the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view and craniocaudal (CC) views. In the extraction step, wavelet coefficients together with singular value decomposition technique were applied to reduce the number of textural attributes. For the selection stage and reduction of attributes, an evaluation of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) technique and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is performed when used for textural information reduction. In the final step, it was used the Random Forest algorithm for classifying regions of interest (ROIs) of the set of images determined as normal, benign and malignant. The experiments showed that ANOVA reached the higher proportional attributes reduction and featured the best results for information fusion of CC and MLO views. The best classification rates were obtained with ANOVA for normal-benign images (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve - AUC = 0.78) and benign-malignant images (AUC = 0.83) and with the PCA method for normal-malignant images (AUC = 0.85).


Singular Value Decomposition Discrete Wavelet Transform Mammographic Image Digital Mammogram Random Forest Algorithm 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brasil, Ministerio da Saude, Instituto Nacional do Cancer (INCA): Estimativa 2012: incidencia de cancer no brasil (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta, S., Markey, M.: Correspondence in texture features between two mammographic views. Medical Physics 32, 1598 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rangayyan, R., Ayres, F., Leo Desautels, J.: A review of computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer: Toward the detection of subtle signs. Journal of the Franklin Institute 344, 312–348 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Velikova, M., Samulski, M., Lucas, P., Karssemeijer, N.: Improved mammographic cad performance using multi-view information: a bayesian network framework. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54, 1131 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wei, J., Chan, H., Sahiner, B., Zhou, C., Hadjiiski, L., Roubidoux, M., Helvie, M.: Computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms: Dual system approach with two-view analysis. Medical Physics 36, 4451 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elter, M., Horsch, A.: Cadx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications: a review. Medical Physics 36, 2052 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang, J., Yao, B., Wason, A.: A genetic algorithm design for microcalcification detection and classification in digital mammograms. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 31, 49–61 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balleyguier, C., Ayadi, S., Van Nguyen, K., Vanel, D., Dromain, C., Sigal, R.: Birads (tm) classification in mammography. European Journal of Radiology 61, 192–194 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta, S., Chyn, P.F., Markey, M.K.: Breast cancer cadx based on bi-rads descriptors from two mammographic views. Med. Phys. 33, 1810–1817 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mallat, S.: Wavelets for a vision. Proceedings of the IEEE 84, 604–614 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mallat, S.: A wavelet tour of signal processing. Academic Press (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eltoukhy, M.M., Faye, I., Samir, B.B.: Curvelet based feature extraction method for breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram. In: Proc. Int Intelligent and Advanced Systems (ICIAS) Conf., pp. 1–5 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rashed, E., Ismail, I., Zaki, S.: Multiresolution mammogram analysis in multilevel decomposition. Pattern Recognition Letters 28, 286–292 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Selvan, S., Ramakrishnan, S.: Svd-based modeling for image texture classification using wavelet transformation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 16, 2688–2696 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pedrini, H., Schwartz, W.: Análise de imagens digitais: princípios, algoritmos e aplicações. Thomson Learning, São Paulo (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramakrishnan, S., Selvan, S.: Image texture classification using wavelet based curve fitting and probabilistic neural network. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology 17, 266–275 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramakrishnan, S., Selvan, S.: Multiwavelets domain singular value features for image texture classification. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A 8, 538–549 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vieira, S.: Análise de variância: ANOVA. Atlas (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Susomboon, R., Raicu, D., Furst, J., Johnson, T.: A co-occurrence texture semi-invariance to direction, distance and patient size. In: Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 6914. Citeseer (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Theodoridis, S., Koutroumbas, K., Pikrakis, A., Cavouras, D.: Introduction to pattern recognition: a matlab approach. Academic Pr. (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A.: Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paquerault, S., Petrick, N., Chan, H., Sahiner, B., Helvie, M.: Improvement of computerized mass detection on mammograms: Fusion of two-view information. Medical Physics 29, 238 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vibha, L., Harshavardhan, G., Pranaw, K., Shenoy, P., Venugopal, K., Patnaik, L.: Classification of mammograms using decision trees. In: 10th International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, IDEAS 2006, pp. 263–266. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramos, R., Nascimento, M.: Comparação de extratores de características em imagens mamográficas. In: XXI Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Biomédica (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo de Souza Jacomini
    • 1
  • Marcelo Zanchetta do Nascimento
    • 1
  • Rogério Daniel Dantas
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Pereira Ramos
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Matemática, Computação e CogniçãoUniversidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)Santo AndréBrasil
  2. 2.Colegiado de Engenharia ElétricaUniversidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF)JuazeiroBrasil

Personalised recommendations