4.7 Article

Classification of breast regions as mass and non-mass based on digital mammograms using taxonomic indexes and SVM

Journal

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 57, Issue -, Pages 42-53

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.11.016

Keywords

Medical image; Breast cancer; Phylogenetic trees; Taxonomic diversity index (Delta); Taxonomic distinctness (Delta*)

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [CNPQ 552108/2011-1]
  3. Foundation for the Protection of Research and Scientific and Technological Development of the State of Maranhao (FAPEMA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer in the world. Several computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems have been used to assist health experts identify suspicious areas that are difficult to perceive with the human eye, thus aiding in the detection and diagnosis of cancer. This work proposes a methodology for the discrimination and classification of regions extracted from mammograms as mass and non-mass. The Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDSM) was used in this work for the acquisition of mammograms. The taxonomic diversity index (Delta) and the taxonomic distinctness (Delta*), which were originally used in ecology, were used to describe the texture of the regions of interest. These indexes were computed based on phylogenetic trees, which were applied to describe the patterns in regions of breast images. Two approaches were used for the analysis of texture: internal and external masks. A support vector machine was used to classify the regions as mass and non-mass. The proposed methodology successfully classified the masses and non-masses, with an average accuracy of 98.88%. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available