Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37370687›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Deep Learning- and Expert Knowledge-Based Feature Extraction and Performance Evaluation in Breast Histopathology Images.

Hepseeba Kode, Buket D Barkana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hepseeba KodeComputer Science and Engineering Department, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-2828-0427
Buket D BarkanaElectrical Engineering Department, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5872-8131

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer develops when a single or a group of cells grows and spreads uncontrollably. Histopathology images are used in cancer diagnosis since they show tissue and cell structures under a microscope. Knowledge-based and deep learning-based computer-aided detection is an ongoing research field in cancer diagnosis using histopathology images. Feature extraction is vital in both approaches since the feature set is fed to a classifier and determines the performance. This paper evaluates three feature extraction methods and their performance in breast cancer diagnosis. Features are extracted by (1) a Convolutional Neural Network, (2) a transfer learning architecture VGG16, and (3) a knowledge-based system. The feature sets are tested by seven classifiers, including Neural Network (64 units), Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron, Decision Tree, Support Vector Machines, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Narrow Neural Network (10 units) on the BreakHis 400× image dataset. The CNN achieved up to 85% for the Neural Network and Random Forest, the VGG16 method achieved up to 86% for the Neural Network, and the knowledge-based features achieved up to 98% for Neural Network, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron classifiers.

Indexed as

breast cancerCNNsfeature extractionhistopathologyknowledge-basedVGG16

Identifiers

PMID37370687
PMCPMC10296694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.