Analysis of density based and fuzzy c-means clustering methods on lesion border extraction in dermoscopy images.

Sinan Kockara, Mutlu Mete, Bernard Chen, Kemal Aydin
Author Information
  1. Sinan Kockara: Computer Science Department, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR, USA. skockara@uca.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided segmentation and border detection in dermoscopic images is one of the core components of diagnostic procedures and therapeutic interventions for skin cancer. Automated assessment tools for dermoscopy images have become an important research field mainly because of inter- and intra-observer variations in human interpretation. In this study, we compare two approaches for automatic border detection in dermoscopy images: density based clustering (DBSCAN) and Fuzzy C-Means (FCM) clustering algorithms. In the first approach, if there exists enough density--greater than certain number of points--around a point, then either a new cluster is formed around the point or an existing cluster grows by including the point and its neighbors. In the second approach FCM clustering is used. This approach has the ability to assign one data point into more than one cluster.
RESULTS: Each approach is examined on a set of 100 dermoscopy images whose manually drawn borders by a dermatologist are used as the ground truth. Error rates; false positives and false negatives along with true positives and true negatives are quantified by comparing results with manually determined borders from a dermatologist. The assessments obtained from both methods are quantitatively analyzed over three accuracy measures: border error, precision, and recall.
CONCLUSION: As well as low border error, high precision and recall, visual outcome showed that the DBSCAN effectively delineated targeted lesion, and has bright future; however, the FCM had poor performance especially in border error metric.

References

  1. Skin Res Technol. 2009 Aug;15(3):314-22 [PMID: 19624428]
  2. Comput Biol Med. 1997 Nov;27(6):533-43 [PMID: 9437554]
  3. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1998 Sep-Oct;22(5):375-89 [PMID: 9890182]
  4. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49 [PMID: 19474385]
  5. Skin Res Technol. 2007 Nov;13(4):454-62 [PMID: 17908199]
  6. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2009 Mar;33(2):148-53 [PMID: 19121917]
  7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993 Oct;29(4):581-8 [PMID: 8408794]
  8. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2003;12(8):938-43 [PMID: 18237967]
  9. Arch Dermatol. 1995 Mar;131(3):286-91 [PMID: 7887657]
  10. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999 Feb;18(2):164-71 [PMID: 10232673]
  11. Skin Res Technol. 2008 Aug;14(3):347-53 [PMID: 19159382]
  12. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1987 Jan;9(1):121-9 [PMID: 21869382]
  13. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008 Jan;55(1):157-61 [PMID: 18232357]
  14. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2007 Sep;16(9):2389-94 [PMID: 17784612]

MeSH Term

Algorithms
Cluster Analysis
Dermoscopy
Fuzzy Logic
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Melanoma
Pattern Recognition, Automated
Skin Neoplasms

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0borderimagesdermoscopyclusteringapproachpointoneFCMclustererrordetectiondensitybasedDBSCANusedmanuallybordersdermatologistfalsepositivesnegativestruemethodsprecisionrecalllesionBACKGROUND:Computer-aidedsegmentationdermoscopiccorecomponentsdiagnosticprocedurestherapeuticinterventionsskincancerAutomatedassessmenttoolsbecomeimportantresearchfieldmainlyinter-intra-observervariationshumaninterpretationstudycomparetwoapproachesautomaticimages:FuzzyC-Meansalgorithmsfirstexistsenoughdensity--greatercertainnumberpoints--aroundeithernewformedaroundexistinggrowsincludingneighborssecondabilityassigndataRESULTS:examinedset100whosedrawngroundtruthErrorratesalongquantifiedcomparingresultsdeterminedassessmentsobtainedquantitativelyanalyzedthreeaccuracymeasures:CONCLUSION:welllowhighvisualoutcomeshowedeffectivelydelineatedtargetedbrightfuturehoweverpoorperformanceespeciallymetricAnalysisfuzzyc-meansextraction

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)