2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.imu.2019.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cervical cancer classification from Pap-smears using an enhanced fuzzy C-means algorithm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
36
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this section, the above three parameters were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach for image extraction. To verify the performance of the optimal threshold, computational time, and unclassified rate evaluation for the characteristic parameters of a coal dust image, several approaches that are widely used to process particulate images were compared by using images of different particle sizes: multiscale image acquisition (MSIA) [26], Daubechies wavelet transform (DWT) [27], Frenkel-Halsey-Hill (FHH) [28], grey-level cooccurrence matrix (GLCM) [29], fuzzy C-means (FCM) [9], Gabor filter [30], FPM, and SFC. In the process of testing the simulations with the approaches in the above works, the adopted test conditions, such as temperature, humidity, light intensity, coal dust sample specifications and other parameters, are not the same, so the measured indexes are different.…”
Section: B Discussion 1) Parameters Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this section, the above three parameters were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach for image extraction. To verify the performance of the optimal threshold, computational time, and unclassified rate evaluation for the characteristic parameters of a coal dust image, several approaches that are widely used to process particulate images were compared by using images of different particle sizes: multiscale image acquisition (MSIA) [26], Daubechies wavelet transform (DWT) [27], Frenkel-Halsey-Hill (FHH) [28], grey-level cooccurrence matrix (GLCM) [29], fuzzy C-means (FCM) [9], Gabor filter [30], FPM, and SFC. In the process of testing the simulations with the approaches in the above works, the adopted test conditions, such as temperature, humidity, light intensity, coal dust sample specifications and other parameters, are not the same, so the measured indexes are different.…”
Section: B Discussion 1) Parameters Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this method ignored the spatial information between image targets with little grey value differences and the conditions of overlapping grey value areas. The histograms did not have obvious double peaks; thus, the extraction effect was poor [9]. The above research method considered the distribution of imagery greyscale space more effectively than other methods, greatly improving the accuracy of image extraction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies show that feature extraction and selecting non-redundant features is an important part of the classification process and it affects the classification result significantly. Different methods have been explored over the years, like traditionally handcrafted feature extraction and feature selection [2], simulated annealing (SA) [34], convolutional neural networks [38], fuzzy-C means [35], to name a few. Some have given very good results in binary classification but not so much in multi-class classification, only a few have successfully given good results even for multi-class classification problem [6,8,24].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In most literature, the classification of Pap smear images consists of a binary separation between normal and abnormal cell (two classes), using different methodologies such as Support Vector Machines (SVM) ( Chen et al, 2014 ; Chankong, Theera-Umpon & Auephanwiriyakul, 2014 ; Kashyap et al, 2016 ; Bora et al, 2017 ), k -Nearest Neighbours (kNN) ( Chankong, Theera-Umpon & Auephanwiriyakul, 2014 ; Bora et al, 2017 ; Marinakis, Dounias & Jantzen, 2009 ; Fekri Ershad, 2019 ), Fuzzy c -Means Algorithm (FCM) ( Chankong, Theera-Umpon & Auephanwiriyakul, 2014 ; William et al, 2019 ), k -Means clustering ( Paul, Bhowmik & Bhattacharjee, 2015 ), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) ( Chankong, Theera-Umpon & Auephanwiriyakul, 2014 ), and, more recently, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) ( Zhang et al, 2017 ; Lin et al, 2019 ; Kurnianingsih et al, 2019 ).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%