2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11548-018-01908-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breast tumor classification using different features of quantitative ultrasound parametric images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hsu et al [48] proposed the CAD for breast tumor classification using quantitative features extracted from ultrasound parametric images. The proposed CAD used a total number of 160 ultrasound images of which 80 were benign and 80 malignant lesions.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hsu et al [48] proposed the CAD for breast tumor classification using quantitative features extracted from ultrasound parametric images. The proposed CAD used a total number of 160 ultrasound images of which 80 were benign and 80 malignant lesions.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data fusion based on different ultrasound parameters can play a complementary role and this method has been applied to the classification of tumors. [112][113][114][115] Rohrbach et al 112 developed prostate cancer risk assessment system based on multiple QUS parameters, including the scatterer property parameters (ESD and EAC) and the shape and scaling parameters (m and Ω) extracted from Nakagami distribution. Hsu et al 113 extracted several morphological features, B-mode texture features and Nakagami m-parameter from clinical cases to distinguish between benign and malignant breast tumors.…”
Section: Multiple Qus Parameters Fusion Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the research by Hsu SM et al morphologicalfeature parameters (e.g., standard deviation of the shortest distance), texture features (e.g., variance), and the Nakagami parameter are combined to extract the physical features of breast ultrasound images, they classified the data using FCM clustering and achieved an accuracy of 89.4%, a specificity of 86.3%, and a sensitivity of 92.5%. Compared with logistic regression and SVM classifiers, the maximum discrimination performance of the optimal feature collection was independent of the type of classifier, indicating that the combination of different feature parameters should be functionally complementary to improve the performance of breast cancer classification (53). Zhang et al constructed a two-layer DL architecture to extract the shear-wave elastography (SWE) features by combining feature learning and feature selection.…”
Section: Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%