2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.icte.2021.11.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Xception model: A potential feature extractor in breast cancer histology images classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As illustrated in Table 6, IRv2-CXL achieved better results than the 16 models included in the table in three of the four magnifications factors. In the 40× magnification factor, the proposed model outperformed almost all the other models by a considerable margin, the only close ones being Sharma and Kumar [47] with 96.25% and Kumar et al [48] with 94.11%. IRv2-CXL attained a 95.84% accuracy in the 100× magnification factor, only outdone by the 96.25% achieved by Sharma and Kumar [47] with a 0.41% margin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As illustrated in Table 6, IRv2-CXL achieved better results than the 16 models included in the table in three of the four magnifications factors. In the 40× magnification factor, the proposed model outperformed almost all the other models by a considerable margin, the only close ones being Sharma and Kumar [47] with 96.25% and Kumar et al [48] with 94.11%. IRv2-CXL attained a 95.84% accuracy in the 100× magnification factor, only outdone by the 96.25% achieved by Sharma and Kumar [47] with a 0.41% margin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…In the 40× magnification factor, the proposed model outperformed almost all the other models by a considerable margin, the only close ones being Sharma and Kumar [47] with 96.25% and Kumar et al [48] with 94.11%. IRv2-CXL attained a 95.84% accuracy in the 100× magnification factor, only outdone by the 96.25% achieved by Sharma and Kumar [47] with a 0.41% margin. The 200× magnification factor led to the best individual magnification result of the proposed model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Meanwhile, confusion matrices achieved by SoACNet are also drawn in Figure 4. Moreover, we also compare SoACNet with five representative CNN-related models [14,20,23,25,30] in terms of precision and recall indexes, and the comparative results are tabled in Table 5. As shown in this table, SoACNet outperforms the five models on all the four data sets under the precision index.…”
Section: Precision Recall and F1-score Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, CNN-based classification methods for breast cancer histopathology images can mainly be divided into the following two streams. Firstly, some researchers utilize newly constructed or representative CNNs as feature extractors to capture deep features, and then employ traditional classifiers to distinguish pathological images based on extracted CNN features, belonging to non-end-to-end models [10,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. For example, Spanhol et al [12] comprehensively evaluate the pre-trained CaffeNet model on breast cancer classification task, and results demonstrate the superior performance over traditional hand-crafted texture descriptors and task-specific CNNs under certain conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent work, the combination of the attention technique and residual CNN model [26] has been utilized for breast cancer detection. A combination of the Xception model as feature extractor and radial basis function (RBF) kernel-based SVM as classifier [27] has been proposed for breast cancer detection from histopathology images. The authors have also studied the effect of magnification factors on performance.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%