2018
DOI: 10.1049/joe.2018.5215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel computer‐aided diagnosis of lung cancer using bag of visual words to achieve high accuracy rates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is obvious from this table that the performance of different deep‐learning models is better than any data set with hand‐engineered feature extraction method for lung cancer. The proposed BDCNN is contrasted with current methods, such as bag of visual word (BoVW) classifier, multiclass SVM (MVSM) classifier, feed forward neural network (FFNN), artificial neural network (ANN), bagged random tree (BRT) classifier, and deep neural network (DNN) 25,31 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is obvious from this table that the performance of different deep‐learning models is better than any data set with hand‐engineered feature extraction method for lung cancer. The proposed BDCNN is contrasted with current methods, such as bag of visual word (BoVW) classifier, multiclass SVM (MVSM) classifier, feed forward neural network (FFNN), artificial neural network (ANN), bagged random tree (BRT) classifier, and deep neural network (DNN) 25,31 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usually, the convolutional neural network is used in this deep learning process; here binary image features are automatically extracted based on the process of classification of features being carried out. The method evaluation period was greater 30‐33 used a superpixel and density‐based spatial clustering approach for segmentation of the lung nodule picture sequences. From the overall survey, the goal of the proposed method is to increase accuracy and reduce analytical time, false‐positive reduction, and subjectivity to segmentation with CT‐scan studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%