2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17938-0_19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classifying Breast Cancer Histopathological Images Using a Robust Artificial Neural Network Architecture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A comparison study is performed between Histo-CADx and the related works that used the exact datasets to measure its effectiveness as shown in Tables 11 and 12 . Regarding the BreakHis dataset, it is clear from Table 12 that the accuracy of Histo-CADx is higher than Nahid & Kong (2018) , Sudharshan et al (2019) , Jiang et al (2019) , Muralikrishnan & Anitha (2019) , Alom et al (2019) , Vo, Nguyen & Lee (2019) , Zhang et al (2019) , Li et al (2020) , and Toğaçar et al (2020) for all magnification factors of BreakHis dataset except for the 200× where Histo-CADx has a slightly lower accuracy than Toğaçar et al (2020) . Regarding the ICIAR dataset, Table 13 verifies the competence of Histo-CADx compared to other recent related studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A comparison study is performed between Histo-CADx and the related works that used the exact datasets to measure its effectiveness as shown in Tables 11 and 12 . Regarding the BreakHis dataset, it is clear from Table 12 that the accuracy of Histo-CADx is higher than Nahid & Kong (2018) , Sudharshan et al (2019) , Jiang et al (2019) , Muralikrishnan & Anitha (2019) , Alom et al (2019) , Vo, Nguyen & Lee (2019) , Zhang et al (2019) , Li et al (2020) , and Toğaçar et al (2020) for all magnification factors of BreakHis dataset except for the 200× where Histo-CADx has a slightly lower accuracy than Toğaçar et al (2020) . Regarding the ICIAR dataset, Table 13 verifies the competence of Histo-CADx compared to other recent related studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the deep learning (DL) methods are the other category. This category can extract features from images in an automatic manner ( Zhang et al, 2019 ). Although such category has great capabilities for classifying and extracting features from huge datasets, DL is not always the perfect option in all datasets especially these having a small number of images ( Nguyen et al, 2018 ; Ragab & Attallah, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the pathological analysis is complex, time-consuming, and is subjective to the pathologist’s knowledge and experience [ 18 ]. Professional pathologists might deliver different decisions regarding the MB subtype [ 19 , 20 ]. Additionally, the limited availability of pathologists is a serious hurdle in the analysis of histopathological images.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, Inception-V3Net and ShuffleNet obtained 93.36% with 400x magnifying factor. However, for overall average accuracy, ResNet18 achieved the best performance of 94.18%, followed by Inception-V3Net with 92.76% and ShuffleNet with 92.27%.Several studies, such as[59,76,79], applied deep learning models to diagnostics of breast cancer using real histopathological images from the BreakHis dataset[65]. Most of the previous studies focused on binary classification, although some considered multiclass classification as well.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18: Comparing the performance of similar DNNs from this thesis and literature in binary classification.Furthermore, different data split or training parameters such as optimization algorithm, learning rate, batch size, decay factor and epoch will make a difference in the performance results.For instance,[76] used Stochastic Gradient Descent for optimization algorithm and a batch size of 32. However, in[79] the authors set the learning rate of the Stochastic Gradient Descent optimizer to 0.001. In[59] they used ResNet-50 and they divided the data into three parts for training, validation and testing and they used Stochastic Gradient Descent optimizer with a learning rate of 0.0005.In Table4.19 below, we compare the performance of different DNNs from literature and this thesis.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%