1996
DOI: 10.1109/42.511750
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification algorithms for quantitative tissue characterization of diffuse liver disease from ultrasound images

Abstract: Visual criteria for diagnosing diffused liver diseases from ultrasound images can be assisted by computerized tissue classification. Feature extraction algorithms are proposed in this paper to extract the tissue characterization parameters from liver images. The resulting parameter set is further processed to obtain the minimum number of parameters which represent the most discriminating pattern space for classification. This preprocessing step has been applied to over 120 distinct pathology-investigated cases… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
139
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 236 publications
(143 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
139
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is in accordance with [3,12]. The classification technique significantly affects the final diagnosis [10]. Using the LOOCV method, the same data set was tested with different types of classifiers, namely a kNN, a Bayes classifier and a SVM classifier with polynomial (SVM P ) and radial-basis (SVM R ) kernels.…”
Section: Original Us Imagementioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This result is in accordance with [3,12]. The classification technique significantly affects the final diagnosis [10]. Using the LOOCV method, the same data set was tested with different types of classifiers, namely a kNN, a Bayes classifier and a SVM classifier with polynomial (SVM P ) and radial-basis (SVM R ) kernels.…”
Section: Original Us Imagementioning
confidence: 84%
“…The non-parametric kNN classifier is also tested in this paper. It classifies a test sample to a class according to the majority of the training neighbors in the feature space by using the minimum Euclidean distance criterion [10]. All classifiers were implemented using the algorithm proposed by [11].…”
Section: Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Virmani et al [16,21,22] used an ROI size of 32×32 pixels. It is worth mentioning that the use of 10×10 pixels and even 25×25 pixels as ROI size yields a smaller number of pixels in comparison to the minimum 800 pixels required to estimate reliable statistics [16,18,[40][41][42]. Yoshida et al [23] used 64×64 pixels as ROI size, possibly because they used high-resolution scanned images instead of real US images.…”
Section: Selection Of Roi Sizementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ROI size also depends on the application for which it will be used. Either too large ROI like 40×40 or too small ROI like 10×10 does contain too much or too less information for computation respectively [14]. An average size of brain tumor is 30×30.…”
Section: Segregating Regions Of Interest (Rois) From Databasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…size of ROI [13]. At least 800 pixels are necessary in a selected ROI to obtain the reliable result of texture analysis [14].…”
Section: Background Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%