4.7 Article

Texture extraction: An evaluation of ridgelet, wavelet and co-occurrence based methods applied to mammograms

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 11036-11047

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.020

Keywords

Mammography; CADx; Texture extraction; Co-occurrence; Wavelet and ridgelet

Funding

  1. FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Image processing algorithms can be used in computer-aided diagnosis systems to extract features directly from digitized mammograms. Typically, two classes of features are extracted from mammograms with these algorithms, namely morphological and non-morphological features. Image texture analysis is an important technique that represents gray level properties of images used to describe non-morphological features. This technique has shown to be a promising technique in analyzing mammographic lesions caused by masses. In this paper, we evaluate texture classification using features derived from co-occurrence matrices, wavelet and ridgelet transforms of mammographic images. In particular, we propose a false positive reduction in computer-aided detection of masses. The data set consisted of 120 cranio-caudal mammograms, half containing a mass, rated as abnormal images, and half with no lesions. The following texture descriptors were then calculated to analyze the regions of interest (ROIs) texture patterns: entropy, energy, sum average, sum variance, and cluster tendency. To select the best set of features for each method, we applied a genetic algorithm (GA). In the ROIs classification stage, we used the Random Forest algorithm, a data mining technique that separates the data into non-overlapping segments. Experimental results showed that the best classification rates were obtained with the wavelet-based feature extraction using GA for selection of the most relevant features, giving an AUC = 0.90. (C) 2012 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