Eighth International Conference on Graphic and Image Processing (ICGIP 2016) 2017
DOI: 10.1117/12.2266335
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deep learning and non-negative matrix factorization in recognition of mammograms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
18
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Suzuki et al (2016) implemented CNNs for mass detection in mammographic images in computer-aided diagnosis [52]. Spanhol et al (2016) applied CNNs for the classification of breast cancer from histopathological images [53], whereas Wichakam and Vateekul, (2016) combined deep convolutional networks and SVMs for mass detection on digital mammograms [54]. Swiderski et al investigated the application of deep learning and non-negative matrix factorization for breast cancer recognition in mammograms [55].…”
Section: Related Research In Breast Cancer Diagnosis Using Convolutiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Suzuki et al (2016) implemented CNNs for mass detection in mammographic images in computer-aided diagnosis [52]. Spanhol et al (2016) applied CNNs for the classification of breast cancer from histopathological images [53], whereas Wichakam and Vateekul, (2016) combined deep convolutional networks and SVMs for mass detection on digital mammograms [54]. Swiderski et al investigated the application of deep learning and non-negative matrix factorization for breast cancer recognition in mammograms [55].…”
Section: Related Research In Breast Cancer Diagnosis Using Convolutiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six of these studies provided the source of data [49,50,52,54,85] while nine studies did not publish the source of data [90,91,92,93,95,101,102,104]. Two research studies used mammographs for detection along with CNN and published data source [51,53]. Eight studies [12,59,77,87,96,98,103,105] used CT Slices, three of which used data from PROMISE [75], and LIDC [166].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the training data is limited to a few patterns over-fitting can occur. To overcome it, Swiderski et al presented a way to enrich the training data using a non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) and statistical self-similarity [53]. Ertosun et al presented a model which at first detects the presence of the mass in the mammograms and then it locates the mass from the mammographic images [51].…”
Section: Models and Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Features are characteristics of the ROI taken from the shape and margin of lesions, masses, and calcifications. These features can be categorized into texture and morphologic features [12,86], descriptors, and model-based features [52], which help to discriminate between benign and malignant lesions. Most of the texture features are calculated from the entire image or ROIs using the gray-level value and the morphological features.…”
Section: Postprocessing Image Feature Extraction and Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%