The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic Classification for Pathological Prostate Images Based on Fractal Analysis
Abstract
Accurate grading for prostatic carcinoma in pathological images is important to prognosis and treatment planning. Since human grading is always time-consuming and subjective, this paper presents a computer-aided system to automatically grade pathological images according to Gleason grading system which is the most widespread method for histological grading of prostate tissues. We proposed two feature extraction methods based on fractal dimension to analyze variations of intensity and texture complexity in regions of interest. Each image can be classified into an appropriate grade by using Bayesian, k-NN, and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers, respectively. Leave-one-out and k-fold cross-validation procedures were used to estimate the correct classification rates (CCR). Experimental results show that 91.2%, 93.7%, and 93.7% CCR can be achieved by Bayesian, k-NN, and SVM classifiers, respectively, for a set of 205 pathological prostate images. If our fractal-based feature set is optimized by the sequential floating forward selection method, the CCR can be promoted up to 94.6%, 94.2%, and 94.6%, respectively, using each of the above three classifiers. Experimental results also show that our feature set is better than the feature sets extracted from multiwavelets, Gabor filters, and gray-level co-occurrence matrix methods because it has a much smaller size and still keeps the most powerful discriminating capability in grading prostate images.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Cited by
Multi-class texture analysis in colorectal cancer histology
Kather, J. N., Weis, C.-A., Bianconi, F., Melchers, S. M., Schad, L. R., Gaiser, T., Marx, A., & Zöllner, F. G. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep27988 · Cited by 578
Doyle, S., Feldman, M., Tomaszewski, J., & Madabhushi, A. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2053540 · Cited by 253
Constrained deep weak supervision for histopathology image segmentation
Jia, Z., Huang, X., Chang, E. I.-C., & Xu, Y. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2724070 · Cited by 242
Qi, X., Karagoz, K., Ren, J., Foran, D. J., & Gatza, M. (2018) · Medical Imaging 2018: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare, Research, and Applications · doi:10.1117/12.2293193 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, P.-W., & Lee, C.-H.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1037-1050
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- OpenAlex
- W2146655125
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automatic Classification for Pathological Prostate Images Based on Fractal Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2009.2012704
- The paper
- Huang, P.-W., & Lee, C.-H. (2009). Automatic Classification for Pathological Prostate Images Based on Fractal Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2009.2012704
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.