2007
DOI: 10.1109/titb.2006.884364
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Framework for Medical Image Retrieval Using Machine Learning and Statistical Similarity Matching Techniques With Relevance Feedback

Abstract: A content-based image retrieval (CBIR) framework for diverse collection of medical images of different imaging modalities, anatomic regions with different orientations and biological systems is proposed. Organization of images in such a database (DB) is well defined with predefined semantic categories; hence, it can be useful for category-specific searching. The proposed framework consists of machine learning methods for image prefiltering, similarity matching using statistical distance measures, and a relevan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
137
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 182 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
137
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The best reported retrieval result in [10] on a dataset of 1,501 radiological images of 17 classes was 0.62, 0.67, and 0.66 for Pr(Re=Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr− Re area, respectively (these values have been approximately calculated from precision-recall curve in [10]). The best performance of the presented CBIR system in [20] based on a database consisting of 5,000 images of 20 classes was 0.68, 0.82, and 0.72 for Pr(Re=Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr−Re area, respectively (these values have been approximately calculated from precision-recall curve in [20]). The best performance of the presented iterative classification-based image retrieval framework in [21] based on dataset of ImageCLEF 2005 consisting of 10,000 medical X-ray images of 57 classes (9,000 images as training dataset and 1,000 images as test dataset) was 0.915, 0.88, 0.71, and 0.67 for Pr (20), Pr(Re= Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr−Re area, respectively.…”
Section: Discussion and Comparison With Other Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The best reported retrieval result in [10] on a dataset of 1,501 radiological images of 17 classes was 0.62, 0.67, and 0.66 for Pr(Re=Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr− Re area, respectively (these values have been approximately calculated from precision-recall curve in [10]). The best performance of the presented CBIR system in [20] based on a database consisting of 5,000 images of 20 classes was 0.68, 0.82, and 0.72 for Pr(Re=Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr−Re area, respectively (these values have been approximately calculated from precision-recall curve in [20]). The best performance of the presented iterative classification-based image retrieval framework in [21] based on dataset of ImageCLEF 2005 consisting of 10,000 medical X-ray images of 57 classes (9,000 images as training dataset and 1,000 images as test dataset) was 0.915, 0.88, 0.71, and 0.67 for Pr (20), Pr(Re= Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr−Re area, respectively.…”
Section: Discussion and Comparison With Other Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performance of this framework was evaluated based on four criteria, Pr (20), Pr(Re=Pr), Pr(Re=0.5), and Pr−Re area where the last three criteria were extracted from precision-recall curve. Table 3 presents the retrieval results of our proposed frameworks based on these four criteria for different values of the score threshold.…”
Section: Discussion and Comparison With Other Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations