4.5 Article

INTENSITY-INVARIANT TEXTURE ANALYSIS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF BI-RADS CATEGORY 3 BREAST MASSES

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 2039-2048

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.003

关键词

Breast cancer; Ultrasound; Breast imaging and reporting data system; Computer-aided diagnosis; Ranklet

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 103-2221-E-002-170-MY3]
  2. Ministry of Economic Affairs [102-EC-17-A-19-S1-164]
  3. Ministry of Education of Taiwan [AE-00-00-06]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea government (MSIP) [2012R1A2A1A01010846]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A2A1A01010846] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiologists likely incorrectly classify benign masses as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3. A computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system was developed in this study as a second viewer to avoid misclassification of carcinomas. Sixty-nine biopsy-proven BI-RADS category 3 masses, including 21 malignant and 48 benign masses, were used to evaluate the CAD system. To improve the texture features, gray-scale variations between images were reduced by transforming pixels into intensity-invariant ranklet coefficients. The textures of the tumor and speckle pixels were extracted from the transformed ranklet images to provide more robust features than in conventional CAD systems. As a result, tumor texture and speckle texture with ranklet transformation achieved significantly better areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) compared with those without ranklet transformation (Az = 0.83 vs. 0.58 and Az = 0.80 vs. 0.56, p value < 0.05). The improved CAD system can be a second reader to confirm the classification of BI-RADS category 3 masses. (C) 2015 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

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

4.5
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