4.7 Article

Two-phase deep convolutional neural network for reducing class skewness in histopathological images based breast cancer detection

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 86-97

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.04.012

关键词

Convolutional neural networks; Mitosis count; Deep learning; Histopathology; Class imbalance; Breast cancer

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan [213-53737-2PS2-038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different types of breast cancer are affecting lives of women across the world. Common types include Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), Tubular carcinoma, Medullary carcinoma, and Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). While detecting cancer, one important factor is mitotic count showing how rapidly the cells are dividing. But the class imbalance problem, due to the small number of mitotic nuclei in comparison to the overwhelming number of non-mitotic nuclei, affects the performance of classification models. This work presents a two-phase model to mitigate the class biasness issue while classifying mitotic and non mitotic nuclei in breast cancer histopathology images through a deep convolutional neural network (CNN). First, nuclei are segmented out using blue ratio and global binary thresholding. In Phase-1 a CNN is then trained on the segmented out 80x80 pixel patches based on a standard dataset. Hard non-mitotic examples are identified and augmented; mitotic examples are oversampled by rotation and flipping; whereas non-mitotic examples are undersampled by blue ratio histogram based k-means clustering. Based on this information from Phase-1, the dataset is modified for Phase-2 in order to reduce the effects of class imbalance. The proposed CNN architecture and data balancing technique yielded an F-measure of 0.79, and outperformed all the methods relying on specific handcrafted features, as well as those using a combination of handcrafted and CNN-generated features.

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

4.7
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