4.7 Article

Cluster based statistical feature extraction method for automatic bleeding detection in wireless capsule endoscopy video

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 41-54

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.12.014

关键词

Bleeding detection; Bleeding zone delineation; Feature extraction; Unsupervised clustering; Wireless capsule endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is capable of demonstrating the entire gastrointestinal tract at an expense of exhaustive reviewing process for detecting bleeding disorders. The main objective is to develop an automatic method for identifying the bleeding frames and zones from WCE video. Different statistical features are extracted from the overlapping spatial blocks of the preprocessed WCE image in a transformed color plane containing green to red pixel ratio. The unique idea of the proposed method is to first perform unsupervised clustering of different blocks for obtaining two clusters and then extract cluster based features (CBFs). Finally, a global feature consisting of the CBFs and differential CBE is used to detect bleeding frame via supervised classification. In order to handle continuous WCE video, a post-processing scheme is introduced utilizing the feature trends in neighboring frames. The CBF along with some morphological operations is employed to identify bleeding zones. Based on extensive experimentation on several WCE videos, it is found that the proposed method offers significantly better performance in comparison to some existing methods in terms of bleeding detection accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and precision in bleeding zone detection. It is found that the bleeding detection performance obtained by using the proposed CBF based global feature is better than the feature extracted from the non-clustered image. The proposed method can reduce the burden of physicians in investigating WCE video to detect bleeding frame and zone with a high level of accuracy.

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