Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of different Gabor feature extraction approaches for mass classification in mammography

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the performance of six different approaches for directional feature extraction for mass classification problem in digital mammograms. These techniques use a bank of Gabor filters to extract the directional textural features. Directional textural features represent structural properties of masses and normal tissues in mammograms at different orientations and frequencies. Masses and micro-calcifications are two early signs of breast cancer which is a major leading cause of death in women. For the detection of masses, segmentation of mammograms results in regions of interest (ROIs) which not only include masses but suspicious normal tissues as well (which lead to false positives during the discrimination process). The problem is to reduce the false positives by classifying ROIs as masses and normal tissues. In addition, the detected masses are required to be further classified as malignant and benign. The feature extraction approaches are evaluated over the ROIs extracted from MIAS database. Successive Enhancement Learning based weighted Support Vector Machine (SELwSVM) is used to efficiently classify the generated unbalanced datasets. The average accuracy ranges from 68 to 100 % as obtained by different methods used in our paper. Comparisons are carried out based on statistical analysis to make further recommendations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alam RN et al (2009) Computer-aided mass detection on digitized mammograms using a novel hybrid segmentation system. Int J Biol Biomed Eng 3(4):51–58

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M et al (2010) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhangale T, Desai UB, Sharma U (2000) An unsupervised scheme for detection of microcalcifications on mammograms. Proc. IEEE Int Conf Image Proc. Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 184–187

  4. Bhangale T, Desai UB, Sharma U (2000) An unsupervised scheme for detection of microcalcifications on mammograms. IEEE Int Conf Image Proc 184–187

  5. Boser BE, Guyon IM, Vapnik V (1992) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proc. of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory 144–152

  6. Burges C (1998) Tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Data Min Knowl Disc 2(2):955–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Costa DD, Campos LF, Barros AK (2001) Classification of breast tissue in mammograms using efficient coding. Bio-Medical Engineering, On-Line, 2011, 10:55, http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/10/1/55

  8. Daugman JG (1980) Two-dimensional spectral analysis of cortical receptive field profiles. Vision Res 20:847–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Demˇsar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Mach Learn Res 7:1–30

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Domínguez AR, Nandi AK (2009) Towards breast cancer diagnosis based on automated segmentation of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recogn 42(6):1138–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern classification, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. El-Naqa I, Yang Y, Wernick M, Galatsanos N, Nishikawa R (2002) A support vector machine approach for detection of microcalcifications. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 21(12):1552–1563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elter M, Horsch A (2009) CADx of mammographic masses and clustered micro calcifications: a review. Med Phys 36(6):2052–2068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Esteve J, Kricker A, Ferlay J, Parkin D (1993) Facts and figures of cancer in the European Community. In: Tech. Rep., International Agency for Research on Cancer

  15. Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measures in taxonomic problems. Ann Eugen 7:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. García S, Herrera F (2008) An extension on “Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets” for all pairwise coparisons. Mach Learn Res 9:2677–2694

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Grigorescu S, Petkov N, Kruizinga P (2002) Comparison of texture features based on Gabor filters. IEEE Trans Image Proc 11(10):1160–1167

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Hsu CW, Chang CC, Lin CJ (2010) A practical guide to support vector classification. Technical report, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University

  19. Hussain M (2014) False positive reduction in mammography using multiscale spatial weber law descriptor and support vector machines. Neural Comput Appl 25(1):83–93, Springer-Verlag

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hussain M, Khan S, Muhammad G, Mohamed B, Bebis G (2012) Mass detection in digital mammograms using gabor filter bank. IET Image Proc 1–5

  21. Ioan B, Gacsadi A (2011) Directional features for automatic tumor classification of mammogram images. Biomed Signal Process Control 6(4):370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Junior GB et al (2009) Classification of breast tissues using Moran’s index and Geary’s coefficient as texture signatures and SVM. Comput Biol Med 39:1063–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lahmiri S, Boukadoum M (2011) Hybrid discrete wavelet transform and gabor filter banks processing for mammogram features extraction. Proc. NEWCAS, France. IEEE Comput Soc 53–56

  24. Lladó X, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R, Martí J (2009) A textural approach for mass false positive reduction in mammography. Comput Med Imaging Graph 33(6):415–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mammographic Image Analysis Society, http://www.wiau.man.ac.uk/services/MIAS/MIASweb.html

  26. Manjunath BS, Ma WY (1996) Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 18(8):837–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moayedi F et al (2010) Contourlet-based mammography mass classification using the SVM family. Comput Biol Med 40:373–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohamed ME, Ibrahima F, Brahim BS (2010) Breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiscale curvelet transform. Comput Med Imaging Graph 34(4):269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nunes AP, Silva AC, de Paiva AC (2010) Detection of masses in mammographic images using geometry, Simpson’s diversity index and SVM. Int J Signal Imaging Syst Eng 3(1):43–51

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oliveira FSS, Filho AOC, Silva AC, Paiva AC, Gattass M (2015) Classification of breast regions as mass and non-mass based on digital mammograms using taxonomic indexes and SVM. Comput Biol Med 57(1):42–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí J et al (2010) A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images. Med Image Anal 14(2):87–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peter K, Nikolay P (1999) Nonlinear operator for oriented texture. IEEE Trans Image Process 8(10):1395–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rangayyan RM, Ferrari RJ, Desautels JEL, Frère AF (2000) Directional analysis of images with Gabor wavelets. Proc. XIII Braz Symp Comput Graphics Image SIBGRAPI 170–177

  34. Reyad YA, Berbar MA, Hussain M (2014) Comparison of statistical, LBP, and multi-resolution analysis features for breast mass classification. J Med Syst 38:100. doi:10.1007/s10916-014-0100-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rogova GL, Stomper PC, Ke C (1999) Microcalcification texture analysis in a hybrid system for computer aided mammography. Proc SPIE 1426–1433

  36. Sampaio WB, Diniz EM, Silva AC, Paiva AC, Gattass M (2011) Detection of masses in mammogram images using CNN, geostatistic functions and SVM. Comput Biol Med 41:653–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Székely N, Tóth N, Pataki B (2006) A hybrid system for detecting masses in mammographic images. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 55(3):944–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tang J, Rangayyan RM, Xu J et al (2009) Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer with mammography: recent advances. IEEE Trans Inform Technol Biomed 13(2):236–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Turk M, Pentland A (1991) Eigenfaces for recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 3:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Turner MR (1986) Texture discrimination by Gabor functions. Biol Cybern 55:71–82

    Google Scholar 

  41. Vapnik V (1995) Statistical learning theory. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang Y, Gao X, Li J (2007) A feature analysis approach to mass detection in mammography based on RF-SVM”, ICIP07 9–12

  43. Wei D, Chan H, Helvie M, Sahiner B, Petrick N, Adler D, Goodsitt M (1995) Classification of mass and normal breast tissue on digital mammograms: multiresolution texture analysis. Med Phys 22(9):1501–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yu S, Shiguan S, Xilin C, Wen G (2009) Hierarchical ensemble of global and local classifiers for face recognition. IEEE Trans Image Process 18(8):1885–1896

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Yufeng Z (2010) Breast cancer detection with gabor features from digital mammograms. Algorithms 3(1):44–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zehan S, George B, Ronald M (2006) Monocular Precrash vehicle detection: features and classifiers. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(7):2019–2034

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by NSTIP strategic technologies programs, grant number 08-INF325-02 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Comsats Institute of Information Technology, Attock, Pakistan

    Salabat Khan

  2. Department of Computer Science, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11543, Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad Hussain & Hatim Aboalsamh

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA

    George Bebis

Authors
  1. Salabat Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hatim Aboalsamh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. George Bebis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salabat Khan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, S., Hussain, M., Aboalsamh, H. et al. A comparison of different Gabor feature extraction approaches for mass classification in mammography. Multimed Tools Appl 76, 33–57 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-3017-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-3017-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation