2017 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/isbi.2017.7950592
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adapting fisher vectors for histopathology image classification

Abstract: Histopathology image classification can provide automated support towards cancer diagnosis. In this paper, we present a transfer learning-based approach for histopathology image classification. We first represent the image feature by Fisher Vector (FV) encoding of local features that are extracted using the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model pretrained on ImageNet. Next, to better transfer the pretrained model to the histopathology image dataset, we design a new adaptation layer to further transform the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Surprisingly, we achieved 85.1% of accuracy using the TCNN without data augmentation, a performance comparable to the baseline which employs an AlexNet CNN with millions of trainable parameters. Approach Accuracy (%) CNN (Alexnet) [7] 84.6 TCNN (DA 1×) 85.1 Baseline [4] 85.1 TCNN Inc (DA 72×) 85.7 Deep Features (DeCaf) [12] 86.3 CNN+Fisher [13] 86.9 MI Approach [11] 87.2 Inception V3 FT (DA 72×) 87.4…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surprisingly, we achieved 85.1% of accuracy using the TCNN without data augmentation, a performance comparable to the baseline which employs an AlexNet CNN with millions of trainable parameters. Approach Accuracy (%) CNN (Alexnet) [7] 84.6 TCNN (DA 1×) 85.1 Baseline [4] 85.1 TCNN Inc (DA 72×) 85.7 Deep Features (DeCaf) [12] 86.3 CNN+Fisher [13] 86.9 MI Approach [11] 87.2 Inception V3 FT (DA 72×) 87.4…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122] The provided label for visual input data (eg, image) can correspond to either an entire image, [111][112][113][123][124][125][126][127][128] a window within the image, 108,[115][116][117] or at the pixel level. [105][106][107]109,110,[118][119][120][121] With the advent of deep learning methods that strongly benefit from pixel-level annotations, the latter is the most common type of problem being currently studied. Another popular scenario is when the training data come with a weaker form of annotation than what is expected as the output of the machine learning system.…”
Section: Machine Learning In Digital Pathology Image Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…127 Additionally, unsupervised learning is commonly employed for extracting the important measurements, or features, from the data. 107,130 There exist other variants of data supervision, which has less commonly been used in digital histopathology, such as reinforcement learning, semi-supervised learning, and selfsupervised learning.…”
Section: Machine Learning In Digital Pathology Image Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With VGG-16, the input image goes through a series of convolutional layers before it finally produces a dense set of local feature descriptors of 512 dimensions at the last fully convolutional layer. In this study, 3D features are generated with the pre-trained VGG-16 model by encoding local features of last convolutional layer from all slices of the 3D image using the Fisher Vector (FV) [30,31]…”
Section: Deep Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Feature extraction from image patches often results in a large number of features, with many being redundant, leading to high computational cost and poor discriminative strength. Therefore feature representation techniques such as BOVW [7] and FV [30,31]…”
Section: Feature Representationmentioning
confidence: 99%