2022
DOI: 10.1109/access.2022.3163822
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breast Cancer Classification From Histopathological Images Using Resolution Adaptive Network

Abstract: Date of publication xxxx 00, 0000, date of current version xxxx 00, 0000.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The HI classification for BC classification has reported average classification accuracy of 84.89% using AlexNet [65], 93.5% using GoogLeNet, 94.13% using VGGNets and 94.35% using ResNet for image level classification on BreaKHis dataset [66]. Binary classification of BC is done with the existing Deep networks such as Resnet101 and DenseNet121 has reported classification accuracy of 91.43 % and 96.74% respectively using BreaKHis dataset, while it is 91.53% and 96.38% respectively using BACH-2018 dataset [67]. The DenseNet121+GAN has reported 99.13% accuracy [68].…”
Section: A Deep Convolutional Neural Network (Dcnn) Based Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The HI classification for BC classification has reported average classification accuracy of 84.89% using AlexNet [65], 93.5% using GoogLeNet, 94.13% using VGGNets and 94.35% using ResNet for image level classification on BreaKHis dataset [66]. Binary classification of BC is done with the existing Deep networks such as Resnet101 and DenseNet121 has reported classification accuracy of 91.43 % and 96.74% respectively using BreaKHis dataset, while it is 91.53% and 96.38% respectively using BACH-2018 dataset [67]. The DenseNet121+GAN has reported 99.13% accuracy [68].…”
Section: A Deep Convolutional Neural Network (Dcnn) Based Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…al., where GAN and DenseNet121 are combined to perform anomaly detection. The combination makes system bulky and computationally inefficient and reported low accuracy [67].…”
Section: E Limitations Of Existing Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this ablation study, results of the proposed MSF model are compared with state-of-theart ResHist [7], Kernelized Weighted Model (KWM) [32], multi-instance support vector machine (pdMISVM) [42], Resolution Adaptive Network (RAN) [43], MA-MIDN [44], DBLCNN [45], GLCM [46], and AE + Siamese Network (AE+SN) [47] The MSF model has f-measure of 98.07% which is highest as compared to other models. Kernelized weighted extreme learning model [32] has f-measure of 89.90% which is the [43] has accuracy 97.91%. Kernelized weighted extreme learning model [32] has the lowest accuracy of 87.14% on BreaKHis dataset.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a number of studies in the literature which have been applied to these datasets. For instance, many researchers have utilised BreakHis dataset to test their networks [11,12,19,20,[26][27][28][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. Zhou et al [45] proposed a novel resolution adaptive network (RAN) to classify different forms of breast cancer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, many researchers have utilised BreakHis dataset to test their networks [11,12,19,20,[26][27][28][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. Zhou et al [45] proposed a novel resolution adaptive network (RAN) to classify different forms of breast cancer. On the BreakHis dataset, it produces a classification accuracy of 98.17%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%