Skip to main content

Classifying Mammography Images by Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and a New Segmentation Algorithm

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 93))

Abstract

Mammography is one of the best techniques for the early detection of breast cancer. In this chapter, a method based on fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) and its evolutionary-based learning capabilities is presented for classifying mammography images. The main contribution of this work is two-fold: (a) to propose a new segmentation approach called the threshold based region growing (TBRG) algorithm for segmentation of mammography images, and (b) to implement FCM method in the context of mammography image classification by developing a new FCM learning algorithm efficient for tumor classification. By applying the proposed (TBRG) algorithm, a possible tumor is delineated against the background tissue. We extracted 36 features from the tissue, describing the texture and the boundary of the segmented region. Due to the curse of dimensionality of features space, the features were selected with the help of the continuous particle swarm optimization algorithm. The FCM was trained using a new evolutionary approach based on the area under curve (AUC) of the output concept. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the presented scheme, comparisons with benchmark machine learning algorithms were conducted and known metrics like ROC, AUC were calculated. The AUC obtained for the test data set is 87.11%, which indicates the excellent performance of the proposed FCM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. U.S. Breast cancer statistics (2017). http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics

  2. Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T et al (2016) Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan strategic anti-cancer randomized trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387:341–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kemp Jacobsen K, O’meara ES, Key D, et al (2015) Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer 137:2198–2207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Du K-L, Swamy MNS (2016) Particle swarm optimization. In: Search and optimization by metaheuristics. Springer, pp 153–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Mandal D, Chatterjee A, Maitra M (2017) Particle swarm optimization based fast Chan-Vese algorithm for medical image segmentation. In: Metaheuristics for medicine and biology. Springer, pp 49–74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Mustra M, Grgic M, Rangayyan RM (2016) Review of recent advances in segmentation of the breast boundary and the pectoral muscle in mammograms. Med Biol Eng Comput 54:1003–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Oliveira Silva LC, Barros AK, Lopes MV (2017) Detecting masses in dense breast using independent component analysis. Artif Intell Med 80:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Amirkhani A, Papageorgiou EI, Mohseni A, Mosavi MR (2017) A review of fuzzy cognitive maps in medicine: taxonomy, methods, and applications. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 142:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Strand F, Humphreys K, Cheddad A et al (2016) Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study. Breast Cancer Res 18:100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chokri F, Farida MH (2016) Mammographic mass classification according to Bi-RADS lexicon. IET Comput Vis 11:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rouhi R, Jafari M, Kasaei S, Keshavarzian P (2015) Benign and malignant breast tumors classification based on region growing and CNN segmentation. Expert Syst Appl 42:990–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deng H, Deng W, Sun X et al (2017) Mammogram enhancement using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 64:1803–1814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jenifer S, Parasuraman S, Kadirvelu A (2016) Contrast enhancement and brightness preserving of digital mammograms using fuzzy clipped contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 42:167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vivona L, Cascio D, Fauci F, Raso G (2014) Fuzzy technique for microcalcifications clustering in digital mammograms. BMC Med Imaging 14:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-14-23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yu S, Guan L (2000) A CAD system for the automatic detection of clustered microcalcifications in digitized mammogram films. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buciu I, Gacsadi A (2011) Directional features for automatic tumor classification of mammogram images. Biomed Signal Process Control 6:370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Arivazhagan S, Ganesan L, Priyal SP (2006) Texture classification using Gabor wavelets based rotation invariant features. Pattern Recognit Lett 27:1976–1982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ganesan K, Acharya UR, Chua CK et al (2014) One-class classification of mammograms using trace transform functionals. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 63:304–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Deans SR (2007) The Radon transform and some of its applications. Courier Corporation

    Google Scholar 

  20. Liu X, Tang J (2014) Mass classification in mammograms using selected geometry and texture features, and a new SVM-based feature selection method. IEEE Syst J 8:910–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kallenberg M, Petersen K, Nielsen M et al (2016) Unsupervised deep learning applied to breast density segmentation and mammographic risk scoring. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1322–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Arevalo J, González FA, Ramos-Pollán R et al (2016) Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 127:248–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerre EE, Nachtegael M (2013) Fuzzy techniques in image processing. Physica

    Google Scholar 

  24. Aminikhanghahi S, Shin S, Wang W et al (2017) A new fuzzy Gaussian mixture model (FGMM) based algorithm for mammography tumor image classification. Multimed Tools Appl 76:10191–10205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pavan ALM, Vacavant A, Trindade AP, de Pina DR (2017) Fibroglandular tissue quantification in mammography by optimized fuzzy C-means with variable compactness. IRBM 38:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goebel PM, Belbachir AN, Truppe M (2005) Noise estimation in panoramic X-ray images: An application analysis approach. In: 2005 IEEE/SP 13th workshop on statistical signal processing, pp 996–1001

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hsieh M-H, Cheng F-C, Shie M-C, Ruan S-J (2013) Fast and efficient median filter for removing 1–99% levels of salt-and-pepper noise in images. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26:1333–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Qayyum A, Basit A (2016) Automatic breast segmentation and cancer detection via SVM in mammograms. In: 2016 International conference on emerging technologies (ICET), pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tourassi GD, Vargas-Voracek R, Catarious DM, Floyd CE (2003) Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information. Med Phys 30:2123–2130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lau T-K, Bischof WF (1991) Automated detection of breast tumors using the asymmetry approach. Comput Biomed Res 24:273–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Xue B, Zhang M, Browne WN (2012) New fitness functions in binary particle swarm optimisation for feature selection. In: 2012 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bueno S, Salmeron JL (2009) Benchmarking main activation functions in fuzzy cognitive maps. Expert Syst Appl 36:5221–5229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant D, Osei-Bryson K-M (2005) Using fuzzy cognitive maps to assess MIS organizational change impact. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS’05, 2005, p 263c–263c

    Google Scholar 

  34. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D et al (2000) The digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography. pp 212–218

    Google Scholar 

  35. Li Y, Chen H, Rohde GK et al (2015) Texton analysis for mass classification in mammograms. Pattern Recognit Lett 52:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Surendiran B, Vadivel A (2010) Feature selection using stepwise ANOVA discriminant analysis for mammogram mass classification. Int J Recent Trends Eng Technol 3:55–57

    Google Scholar 

  37. Choi JY, Kim DH, Plataniotis KN, Ro YM (2016) Classifier ensemble generation and selection with multiple feature representations for classification applications in computer-aided detection and diagnosis on mammography. Expert Syst Appl 46:106–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jiao Z, Gao X, Wang Y, Li J (2016) A deep feature based framework for breast masses classification. Neurocomputing 197:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mandelbrot B (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. WH Freeman

    Google Scholar 

  40. Foroutan-pour K, Dutilleul P, Smith DL (1999) Advances in the implementation of the box-counting method of fractal dimension estimation. Appl Math Comput 105:195–210

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Cascio D, Fauci F, Magro R et al (2006) Mammogram segmentation by contour searching and mass lesions classification with neural network. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 53:2827–2833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE (2002) Digital image processing. Prentice hall

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dalal N, Triggs B (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, CVPR 2005. pp 886–893

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdollah Amirkhani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

In this appendix, the features extracted from the segmented images are described. A total of 36 features that describe the texture and the boundaries of the segmented region were extracted. The designations of these features are given in Table 5, followed by a brief explanation regarding each extracted feature.

Table 5 Names of the extracted features
  1. 1.

    Circularity

The circularity of a region, which shows its resemblance to a circle, is obtained from Eq. (7)

$$ Circularity = \frac{{P^{2} }}{A} $$
(7)

Here, P and A denote the circumference and the area of a segmented region, respectively.

  1. 2.

    Area

The area of a segmented region is equal to the total number of pixels which are members of this region.

  1. 3.

    Features related to radial length

In order to determine this feature, it is necessary to first obtain the center of the segmented region by Eq. (8). Then the Euclidean distance of each pixel on the contour (Boundary of the segmented region) is calculated from the geometrical center. The average and the standard deviation of these distances constitute the two features of this section.

$$ X = \frac{1}{N}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} x_{i} .\quad Y = \frac{1}{N}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} y_{i} $$
(8)

Here, N is the number of pixels on the contour, xi and yi are the x,y coordinates of the ith pixel on the contour, and X and Y are the x, y coordinates of the segmented region’s geometrical center.

  1. 4.

    Entropy of the segmented region

The entropy of the segmented region’s brightness intensity is obtained from Eq. (9). The entropy is a measure of the randomness of a random variable.

$$ E = - \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} p_{i} { \log }\left( {p_{i} } \right) $$
(9)

where, N denotes the number of brightness levels and pi is the probability of having a pixel with brightness level i in the segmented region.

  1. 5.

    Features related to fractal index

By measuring the variations of details with respect to scale, fractal dimension can provide a criterion for the complexity of a segmented region [39]. The fractal dimension of a segmented region can be computed by means of Eq. (10).

$$ N = N_{0} R^{ - D} $$
(10)

Here, N denotes the number of boxes superimposed to the segmented area, N0 is an arbitrary constant, R is the size of different boxes and D is the fractal dimension. N and R can be obtained by using the box counting method [40]. In view of Eq. (10), if the logN-logR diagram is modeled on a line, the slope (i.e. the fractal dimension) and the intercept of this line can be used as two features. Also, the dispersion variance of the slopes of lines in the logN-logR diagram could be considered as another feature.

  1. 6.

    Eccentricity

Eccentricity shows the degree of lengthening of the segmented region [41], and it is obtained from the eigenvalues of Matrix A whose entries can be defined with regards to Eq. (11).

$$ A_{11} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} \left( {x_{i} - X} \right)^{2} \cdot A_{22} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} \left( {y_{i} - Y} \right)^{2} \cdot { }A_{12} = A_{21} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{N} \left( {x_{i} - X} \right)\left( {y_{i} - Y} \right) $$
(11)

In the above equation, Aij is the entry related to the ith row and jth column of Matrix A, N is the number of pixels on the boundary, xi and yi represent the coordinates of the ith pixel on the boundary, and X and Y denote the coordinates of the segmented region’s geometrical center.

  1. 7.

    Second invariant moment

The second and the third moments of an image can be defined so that they are robust against variables like rotation and scale. A number of these moments have been introduced in [42]. We have extracted the second invariant moment as a feature for the segmented region.

  1. 8.

    Entropy of contour gradient

For extracting this feature, by using the Sobel operator, the gradient direction of the pixels on the segmented region’s boundary is determined. Then, by considering this gradient direction and Fig. 4, the histogram of gradient direction is obtained for the 8-neighbor case, and by 8 bins.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The bins of gradient direction histogram for the case of 8 neighbors (each bin covers a total of 45º)

After establishing the gradient direction histogram, the entropy of contour gradient can be obtained from Eq. (12).

$$ E = - \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{8} p_{i} { \log }\left( {p_{i} } \right) $$
(12)

where, pi is the probability of finding an arbitrary pixel on the boundary with maximum fluctuations in the direction of histogram’s ith bin.

  1. 9.

    Average brightness intensity

The mean brightness intensity of the segmented region is extracted as a feature.

  1. 10.

    Standard deviation of brightness intensity

The standard deviation of the brightness intensities of the pixels within the segmented region is extracted as a feature.

  1. 11.

    Features related to GLCM

The grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) has been extensively used to describe the image textures. In order to extract the features associated with GLCM, the tumor tissue texture is extracted by using the bounding box method, and then the GLCM matrix is determined for this region. Subsequently, 14 features are extracted, which are definable from this matrix.

  1. 12.

    Histogram of gradients

In this approach, which is the simplified method of the histogram of oriented gradients [43], the whole texture of the segmented region is extracted first by using the bounding box method, and the extracted image is considered as a cell. For this cell, a 9-bin histogram is obtained by considering the size and gradient direction of the existing pixels and these bins are used as features.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Amirkhani, A., Kolahdoozi, M., Papageorgiou, E.I., Mosavi, M.R. (2018). Classifying Mammography Images by Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and a New Segmentation Algorithm. In: Giabbanelli, P., Mago, V., Papageorgiou, E. (eds) Advanced Data Analytics in Health. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 93. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77911-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77911-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77910-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77911-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics