skip to main content
10.1145/3345252.3345264acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescompsystechConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Wavelet approach to extract main features from indirect immunofluorescence images

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

A number of previous studies have shown that IIF image analysis requires complex and sometimes heterogeneous and diversified methods. Robust solutions can be proposed but they need to orchestrate several methods from low-level analysis up to more complex neural networks or SVM for data classification. The contribution intends to highlight the versatility of Wavelet Transform (WT) and their use in various levels of analysis for the classification of IIF images in order to develop a system capable of performing: image enhancement, ROI segmentation and object classification. Therefore, WT was adopted in the de-noise section, segmentation and classification. This analysis allows frequencies characterization (low/high) and with the statistical distributions of the wavelet coefficients will be able to support the medical diagnosis process. In particular, the robustness and the goodness of the segmentation phase must be highlighted and its validation was reported in the section 3.2.1. From the depicted data it is possible to assert that the validation with ground truths produced an accuracy of 90% and that the method, to the best of our knowledge, is superior to other methods, which do not support WT (see Table 1). The advantage of using WT in all levels of abstraction of IIF data analysis lies robustness of the method, and in the rapid understanding, by the end user, of a single method that shows good average results in all levels of analysis.

References

  1. AIDA. 2007. AIDA HEp-2 images dataset. http://www.aidaproject.net/index.php/it/component/users/?view=login.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Alfano, B. Lenzitti, G. Lo Bosco, and V. Perticone. 2015. An automatic system for helping health consumers to understand medical texts. HEALTHINF 2015 - 8th International Conference on Health Informatics, Proceedings; Part of 8th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, BIOSTEC 2015 (2015), 622--627. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Anzalone, G. Fusco, F. Isgró, E. Orlandi, R. Prevete, G. Sciortino, D. Tegolo, and C. Valenti. 2013. A system for the automatic measurement of the nuchal translucency thickness from ultrasound video stream of the foetus. In 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer--Based Medical Systems. 239--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla. 2017. SegNet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture for Image Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 39, 12 (2017), 2481--2495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. B. Ballaró, A.M. Florena, V. Franco, D. Tegolo, C. Tripodo, and C. Valenti. 2008. An automated image analysis methodology for classifying megakaryocytes in chronic myeloproliferative disorders. Medical Image Analysis 12, 6 (2008), 703-- 712.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. N. Bayramoglu, J. Kannala, and J. Heikkilä. 2015. Human Epithelial Type 2 cell classification with convolutional neural networks. In IEEE 15th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering. 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. N. Bizzaro, I. Brusca, and et al. 2018. The association of solid-phase assays to immunofluorescence increases the diagnostic accuracy for ANA screening in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Autoimmunity Reviews 17, 6 (2018), 541--547.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. Brunetti, L. Carnimeo, G.F. Trotta, and V. Bevilacqua. 2018. Computer-assisted frameworks for classification of liver, breast and blood neoplasias via neural networks: A survey based on medical images. Neurocomputing 335 (2018), 278-- 298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Cascio, V. Taormina, and G. Raso. 2019. An automatic HEp-2 specimen analysis system based on an active contours model and an SVM classification. Applied Sciences 9, 2 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Dagher and S. Issa. 2012. Subband effect of the wavelet fuzzy C-means features in texture classification. Image and Vision Computing 30, 11 (2012), 896--905. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Lee R. Dice. 1945. Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species. Ecology 26, 3 (1945), 297--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. B. S. Divya, K. Subramaniam, and H. R. Nanjundaswamy. 2017. HEp-2 cell classification using artificial neural network approach. In International Conference on Pattern Recognition. 84--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Doi. 2007. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: Historical review, current status and future potential. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 31, 4-5 (2007), 198--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. S. Elakkiya and S. Audithan. 2014. Feature based object recognition using discrete wavelet transform. In Second International Conference on Current Trends In Engineering and Technology - ICCTET 2014. 393--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. P. Foggia, G. Percannella, P. Soda, and M. Vento. 2013. Benchmarking HEp-2 cells classification methods. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32, 10 (2013), 1878--1889.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. G. J. Friou. 1962. Fluorescent spot test for anti-nuclear antibodies. Arthritis & Rheumatism 5, 4 (1962), 407--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. 2016. Region-Based Convolutional Networks for Accurate Object Detection and Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 38, 1 (2016), 142--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. Guastella and C. Valenti. 2016. Cartoon filter via adaptive abstraction. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 36 (2016), 149--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. Gupta, V. Gupta, A.K. Sao, A. Bhavsar, and A.D. Dileep. 2014. Class-specific hierarchical classification of hep-2 cell images: The case of two classes. In 1st Workshop on Pattern Recognition Techniques for Indirect Immunofluorescence Images. 6--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. Hamad, D. Tegolo, and C. Valenti. 2014. Automatic detection and classification of retinal vascular landmarks. Image Analysis and Stereology 33, 3 (2014), 189--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. International Consensus on ANA Patterns. 2015. ANA-Patterns dataset. https://www.anapatterns.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. X. Jiang, G. Percannella, and M. Vento. 2015. A verification-based multithreshold probing approach to HEp-2 cell segmentation. LNCS 9257 (2015), 266--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Kavanaugh, R. Tomar, J. Reveille, D.H. Solomon, and H.A. Homburger. 2000. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124, 1 (2000), 71--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. T. Liu, W. Zhang, and S. Yan. 2015. A novel image enhancement algorithm based on stationary wavelet transform for infrared thermography to the de-bonding defect in solid rocket motors. MSSP 62 (2015), 366--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. M. Mafi, H. Martin, M. Cabrerizo, J. Andrian, A. Barreto, and M. Adjouadi. 2019. A comprehensive survey on impulse and Gaussian denoising filters for digital images. Signal Processing 157 (2019), 236--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Mencattini, M. Salmeri, R. Lojacono, M. Frigerio, and F. Caselli. 2008. Mammographic images enhancement and denoising for breast cancer detection using dyadic wavelet processing. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 57, 7 (2008), 1422--1430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. M. Merone and P. Soda. 2016. On using active contour to segment HEp-2 cells. In IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. 118--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. MIVIA LAB. 2010. HEp-2 images dataset. http://mivia.unisa.it/datasets/biomedical-image-datasets/hep2-image-dataset/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. E. Pellegrini, G. Robertson, E. Trucco, T.J. MacGillivray, C. Lupascu, J. van Hemert, M.C. Williams, D.E. Newby, E.J.R. van Beek, and G. Houston. 2014. Blood vessel segmentation and width estimation in ultra-wide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Biomedical Optics Express 5, 12 (2014), 4329--4337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. G. Percannella, P. Soda, and M. Vento. 2012. A classification-based approach to segment HEp-2 cells. In IEEE Symp. on Computer-Based Medical Systems. 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Z. Qinli, S. Shuting, S. Xiaoyun, and G. Qi. 2017. A novel method of medical image enhancement based on wavelet decomposition. Automatic Control and Computer Sciences 51, 4 (2017), 263--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. S. Roy and P. Maji. 2017. A modified rough-fuzzy clustering algorithm with spatial information for HEp-2 cell image segmentation. In IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine. 383--388.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. M. Satoh and et al. 2009. Clinical interpretation of antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases. Mod Rheumatol 19, 3 (2009), 219--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. G. Sciortino, E. Orlandi, C. Valenti, and D. Tegolo. 2016. Wavelet analysis and neural network classifiers to detect mid-sagittal sections for nuchal translucency measurement. Image Analysis and Stereology 35, 2 (2016), 105--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. G. Sciortino, D. Tegolo, and C. Valenti. 2017. Automatic detection and measurement of nuchal translucency. Computers in Biology and Medicine 82 (2017), 12--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. I.W. Selesnick, R.G. Baraniuk, and N.G. Kingsbury. 2005. The dual-tree complex wavelet transform. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 22, 6 (2005), 123--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. V. K. Sudarshan and et al. 2016. Application of wavelet techniques for cancer diagnosis using ultrasound images: A Review. Comput Biol Med 69 (2016), 97--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. Tian and et al. 2018. Radiomics in medical imaging-detection, extraction and segmentation. Intelligent Systems Reference Library 140 (2018), 267--333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. S. Tonti and et al. 2015. An automated approach to the segmentation of HEp-2 cells for the indirect immunofluorescence ANA test. Comput Med Imaging Graph 40 (2015), 62--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. C. Tripodo, C. Valenti, B. Ballaró, Z. Rudzki, D. Tegolo, V. Di Gesú, A.M. Florena, and V. Franco. 2006. Megakaryocytic features useful for the diagnosis of myeloproliferative disorders can be obtained by a novel unsupervised software analysis. Histology and Histopathology 21, 7-9 (2006), 813--821.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. D. Wormanns and et al. 2002. Automatic detection of pulmonary nodules at spiral CT: clinical application of a computer-aided diagnosis system. European Radiology 12, 5 (2002), 1052--1057.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. P. Yang and G. Yang. 2018. Statistical model and local binary pattern based texture feature extraction in dual-tree complex wavelet transform domain. Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing 29, 3 (2018), 851--865. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Y. Yang, Z. Su, and L. Sun. 2010. Medical image enhancement algorithm based on wavelet transform. Electronics Letters 46, 2 (2010), 120--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. X. Zhou, Y. Li, and L. Shen. 2016. A novel adaptive local thresholding approach for segmentation of HEp-2 cell images. In IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing. 174--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Wavelet approach to extract main features from indirect immunofluorescence images

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in
                  • Published in

                    cover image ACM Other conferences
                    CompSysTech '19: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies
                    June 2019
                    365 pages
                    ISBN:9781450371490
                    DOI:10.1145/3345252

                    Copyright © 2019 ACM

                    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                    Publisher

                    Association for Computing Machinery

                    New York, NY, United States

                    Publication History

                    • Published: 21 June 2019

                    Permissions

                    Request permissions about this article.

                    Request Permissions

                    Check for updates

                    Qualifiers

                    • research-article
                    • Research
                    • Refereed limited

                    Acceptance Rates

                    Overall Acceptance Rate241of492submissions,49%
                  • Article Metrics

                    • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
                    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

                    Other Metrics

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader