4.6 Article

A comprehensive study on the multi-class cervical cancer diagnostic prediction on pap smear images using a fusion-based decision from ensemble deep convolutional neural network

期刊

TISSUE & CELL
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tice.2020.101347

关键词

Cervical dysplasia; Classification; Deep learning; Convolutional neural network; Pap smear

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt. of India [DBT-NER/Health/48/2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diagnosis of cervical dysplasia, carcinoma in situ and confirmed carcinoma cases is more easily perceived by commercially available and current research-based decision support systems when the scenario of pathologists to patient ratio is small. The treatment modalities for such diagnosis rely exclusively on precise identification of dysplasia stages as followed by The Bethesda System. The classification based on The Bethesda System is a multiclass problem, which is highly relevant and vital. Reliance on image interpretation, when done manually, introduces inter-observer variability and makes the microscope observation tedious and time-consuming. Taking this into account, a computer-assisted screening system built on deep learning can significantly assist pathologists to screen with correct predictions at a faster rate. The current study explores six different deep convolutional neural networks- Alexnet, Vggnet (vgg-16 and vgg-19), Resnet (resnet-50 and resnet-101) and Googlenet architectures for mull-class (four-class) diagnosis of cervical pre-cancerous as well as cancer lesions and incorporates their relative assessment. The study highlights the addition of an ensemble classifier with three of the best deep learning models for yielding a high accuracy mull-class classification. All six deep models including ensemble classifier were trained and validated on a hospital-based pap smear dataset collected through both conventional and liquid-based cytology methods along with the benchmark Herlev dataset.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据