Published in

World Scientific Publishing, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 01(17), p. 113-131

DOI: 10.1142/s0129183106009199

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Testing the performances of different image representations for mass classification in digital mammograms

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The classification of tumoral masses and normal breast tissue is targeted. A mass detection algorithm which does not refer explicitly to shape, border, size, contrast or texture of mammographic suspicious regions is evaluated. In the present approach, classification features are embodied by the image representation used to encode suspicious regions. Classification is performed by means of a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. To investigate whether improvements can be achieved with respect to a previously proposed overcomplete wavelet image representation, a pixel and a discrete wavelet image representations are developed and tested. Evaluation is performed by extracting 6000 suspicious regions from the digital database for screening mammography (DDSM) collected by the University of South Florida (USF). More specifically, 1000 regions representing biopsy-proven tumoral masses (either benign or malignant) and 5000 regions representing normal breast tissue are extracted. Results demonstrate very high performance levels. The area Az under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve reaches values of 0.973 ± 0.002, 0.948 ± 0.004 and 0.956 ± 0.003 for the pixel, discrete wavelet and overcomplete wavelet image representations, respectively. In particular, the improvement in the Az value with the pixel image representation is statistically significant compared to that obtained with the discrete wavelet and overcomplete wavelet image representations (two-tailed p-value < 0.0001). Additionally, 90% true positive fraction (TPF) values are achieved with false positive fraction (FPF) values of 6%, 11% and 7%, respectively.