ArticleInterdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences2022
Feature Generalization for Breast Cancer Detection in Histopathological Images.
Article in Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Detection of Masses in Mammogram Images Based on the Enhanced RetinaNet Network With INbreast Dataset.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- A depth analysis of recent innovations in non-invasive techniques using artificial intelligence approach for cancer prediction.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Review
- Deep Learning-Based Analysis of Mammographic Images for Breast Cancer Detection Using Transfer Learning.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
- RSDCNet: An efficient and lightweight deep learning model for benign and malignant pathology detection in breast cancer.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent period has witnessed benchmarked performance of transfer learning using deep architectures in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of breast cancer. In this perspective, the pre-trained neural network needs to be fine-tuned with relevant data to extract useful features from the dataset. However, in addition to the computational overhead, it suffers the curse of overfitting in case of feature extraction from smaller datasets. Handcrafted feature extraction techniques as well as feature extraction using pre-trained deep networks come into rescue in aforementioned situation and have proved to be much more efficient and lightweight compared to deep architecture-based transfer learning techniques. This research has identified the competence of classifying breast cancer images using feature engineering and representation learning over the established and contemporary notion of using transfer learning techniques. Moreover, it has revealed superior feature learning capacity with feature fusion in contrast to the conventional belief of understanding unknown feature patterns better with representation learning alone. Experiments have been conducted on two different and popular breast cancer image datasets, namely, KIMIA Path960 and BreakHis datasets. A comparison of image-level accuracy is performed on these datasets using the above-mentioned feature extraction techniques. Image level accuracy of 97.81% is achieved for KIMIA Path960 dataset using individual features extracted with handcrafted (color histogram) technique. Fusion of uniform Local Binary Pattern (uLBP) and color histogram features has resulted in 99.17% of highest accuracy for the same dataset. Experimentation with BreakHis dataset has resulted in highest classification accuracy of 88.41% with color histogram features for images with 200X magnification factor. Finally, the results are contrasted to that of state-of-the-art and superior performances are observed on many occasions with the proposed fusion-based techniques. In case of BreakHis dataset, the highest accuracies 87.60% (with least standard deviation) and 85.77% are recorded for 200X and 400X magnification factors, respectively, and the results for the aforesaid magnification factors of images have exceeded the state-of-the-art.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35482216What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.