Comparison of methods for texture analysis of QUS parametric images in the characterization of breast lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate and timely diagnosis of breast carcinoma is very crucial because of its high incidence and high morbidity. Screening can improve overall prognosis by detecting the disease early. Biopsy remains as the gold standard for pathological confirmation of malignancy and tumour grading. The development of diagnostic imaging techniques as an alternative for the rapid and accurate characterization of breast masses is necessitated. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) spectroscopy is a modality well suited for this purpose. This study was carried out to evaluate different texture analysis methods applied on QUS spectral parametric images for the characterization of breast lesions. METHODS: Parametric images of mid-band-fit (MBF), spectral-slope (SS), spectral-intercept (SI), average scatterer diameter (ASD), and average acoustic concentration (AAC) were determined using QUS spectroscopy from 193 patients with breast lesions. Texture methods were used to quantify heterogeneities of the parametric images. Three statistical-based approaches for texture analysis that include Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Gray Level Run-length Matrix (GRLM), and Gray Level Size Zone Matrix (GLSZM) methods were evaluated. QUS and texture-parameters were determined from both tumour core and a 5-mm tumour margin and were used in comparison to histopathological analysis in order to classify breast lesions as either benign or malignant. We developed a diagnostic model using different classification algorithms including linear discriminant analysis (LDA), k-nearest neighbours (KNN), support vector machine with radial basis function kernel (SVM-RBF), and an artificial neural network (ANN). Model performance was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and hold-out validation. RESULTS: Classifier performances ranged from 73% to 91% in terms of accuracy dependent on tumour margin inclusion and classifier methodology. Utilizing information from tumour core alone, the ANN achieved the best classification performance of 93% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 91% accuracy, 0.95 AUC using QUS parameters and their GLSZM texture features. CONCLUSIONS: A QUS-based framework and texture analysis methods enabled classification of breast lesions with >90% accuracy. The results suggest that optimizing method for extracting discriminative textural features from QUS spectral parametric images can improve classification performance. Evaluation of the proposed technique on a larger cohort of patients with proper validation technique demonstrated the robustness and generalization of the approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".