ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Examining feature extraction and classification modules in machine learning for diagnosis of low-dose computed tomographic screening-detected
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Medical imaging-based machine learning (ML) for computer-aided diagnosis of Approach: Three feature extraction methods were investigated. One uses the mathematical descriptor of gray-level co-occurrence image texture measure to extract the Haralick image texture features (HFs). One uses the convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture to extract deep learning (DL) image abstractive features (DFs). The third one uses the interactions between lesion tissues and X-ray energy of CT to extract tissue-energy specific characteristic features (TFs). All the above three categories of extracted features were classified by the random forest (RF) classifier with comparison to the DL-CNN method, which reads the images, extracts the DFs, and classifies the DFs in an end-to-end manner. The ML diagnosis of lesions or prediction of lesion malignancy was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Three lesion image datasets were used. The lesions' tissue pathological reports were used as the learning labels. Results: Experiments on the three datasets produced AUC values of 0.724 to 0.878 for the HFs, 0.652 to 0.965 for the DFs, and 0.985 to 0.996 for the TFs, compared to the DL-CNN of 0.694 to 0.964. These experimental outcomes indicate that the RF classifier performed comparably to the DL-CNN classification module and the extraction of tissue-energy specific characteristic features dramatically improved AUC value. Conclusions: The feature extraction module is more important than the feature classification module. Extraction of tissue-energy specific characteristic features is more important than extraction of image abstractive and characteristic features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.