Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Complex & Intelligent Systems 6/2022

Open Access 03.05.2022 | Original Article

New bag-of-feature for histopathology image classification using reinforced cat swarm algorithm and weighted Gaussian mixture modelling

verfasst von: Surbhi Vijh, Sumit Kumar, Mukesh Saraswat

Erschienen in: Complex & Intelligent Systems | Ausgabe 6/2022

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The progress in digital histopathology for computer-aided diagnosis leads to advancement in automated histopathological image classification system. However, heterogeneity and complexity in structural background make it a challenging process. Therefore, this paper introduces robust and reliable new bag-of-feature framework. The optimal visual words are obtained by applying proposed reinforcement cat swarm optimization algorithm. Moreover, the frequency of occurrence of each visual words is depicted through histogram using new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling method. Reinforcement cat swarm optimization algorithm is evaluated on the IEEE CEC 2017 benchmark function problems and compared with other state-of-the-art algorithms. Moreover, statistical test analysis is done on acquired mean and the best fitness values from benchmark functions. The proposed classification model effectively identifies and classifies the different categories of histopathological images. Furthermore, the comparative experimental result analysis of proposed reinforcement cat swarm optimization-based bag-of-feature is performed on standard quality metrics measures. The observation states that reinforcement cat swarm optimization-based bag-of-feature outperforms the other methods and provides promising results.
Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

The development of computer-aided diagnosis for medical image analysis requires an efficient classification method to improve the decision-making process. Pathological images are considered as the gold standard for detecting carcinoma depending upon the observed texture, shape, and color of the cell [13]. Digital pathology enables the examination of stained images for diagnosis and classification of diseases [46]. However, an efficient classification system for histopathological images is still in development and these images are studied manually by pathologists. Histopathology is the study of inflammed tissue section which contains the complex structure having various morphological variabilities [7]. These complex structured images make it difficult to design an efficient and effective automatic classification system [8]. To depict the complexity and variability in histopathological images, some of the representative images are shown in Fig. 1. The observation shows that the manual approach leads to substantial variation [9] and is usually a time-taking process [10]. Therefore, there is a growing requirement for an automated histopathology image classification process for their quantitative analysis [1113]. For the same, digital histopathology tissue patterns may be utilized to extract the information and advancing the classification process. The effective classification method may discover the various categories and explore the benign or malignant stages of histopathological images.
There are various methods presented for histopathological image classification. However, bag-of-features (BOF) is one of the successful methods used for histopatholgical images. Furthermore, the appropriate feature selection and visualization of different varieties of features’ descriptors assist in classification. A BOF framework is used for feature selection and feature representation constructively in computer vision [14]. BOF is a popular method in which a collection of gathered features is assembled in clusters through the k-means technique. The visual vocabulary is obtained from extracted feature descriptors using the K-means clustering method. Here, the clustering approach allocates the data vectors to each cluster with minimum cohesion [15]. However, K-means may give biasness towards cluster formation on high-dimensional feature descriptor and generally trap in local optimum. Furthermore, the visual words’ occurrences in each image are represented using the histogram. Various researchers propose the variants of BOF methods for achieving better accuracy [16]. Mittal et al. [17] classified the histopathological tissue images into connective tissue, nervous tissue, epithelium tissue, and muscular tissue. In this method, an improved BOF method is applied by implementing a gravitational search algorithm to acquire optimal visual words. Dimitrovski et al. [18] presented the annotation hierarchy for multi-label classification of the medical images using the predictive clustering tree technique. Cruz-Roa et al. [19] proposed the automatic annotation, consisting of BOF representation, probabilistic annotation, and latent topic model on the histopathological image. The support vector machine (SVM) method is used for classification and evaluating the accuracy, precision, and F-score measures.
The overall contribution of the paper has threefold; (1) a new reinforcement cat swarm optimization (RCSO) is introduced, (2) improved feature representation method, referred to as weighted Gaussian mixture modelling, is presented, and (3) a new BOF model for classification of histopathological images is developed. The RCSO algorithm’s performance is tested on 29 benchmark functions of CEC 2017, and comparative analysis is done on the existing state-of-the-art algorithms, namely lion optimization algorithm (LOA), cat swarm optimization (CSO), whale optimization algorithm (WOA), and particle swarm optimization (PSO). Moreover, rigorous statistical analysis is performed for checking the significance of acquired results. Furthermore, the comparative analysis is performed based on BOF technique, namely PSO_BOF, WOA_BOF, CSO_BOF, and LOA_BOF. The quality metrics measures are evaluated by computing recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy on different histology dataset categories using SVM and multilayer perceptron (MLP). Furthermore, confusion matrices are generated for each category of benign and malignant histopathological images. The experimental result analysis and observation show that the proposed method is efficient and outperforms the existing state-of-the-art methods.
The rest of the paper is structured in the following sections. Section 2 discusses the literature review and CSO algorithm, Sect. 3 elaborates the proposed methodology, Sect. 4 presents the experimental analysis, and conclusion are drawn in Sect. 5.

Literature review

Bio-inspired or meta-heuristic algorithms are the nature-inspired techniques that help to solve real-world optimization problems. In literature, several nature-inspired algorithms have been presented which mimic a biological or physical behavioural phenomenon to solve real-world optimization problems [20]. Some of the popular meta-heuristic algorithms are PSO [21], CSO [22], WOA [23], Cuckoo Search (CS) [24], LOA [25], and many more. O’Boyle et al. [26] presented the selection of optimal features subset using ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm and simultaneously improved the parameter metrics of SVM. Rodrigues et al. [27] demonstrated optimal path forest and bat algorithm for novel feature selection process. Gu et al. [28] introduced the CSO technique to reduce the dimension of the dataset and select the best features. CSO is a popular variant of the particle swarm algorithm for determining the relevant attributes among extracted features. Mittal et al. [29] presented an improved gravitational search algorithm which is a meta-heuristic technique based on Newtonian gravity to determine optimal threshold value in the 2D histogram of an image. Regardless of their nature, population-based meta-heuristic clustering optimization algorithms return possible global optimal value of the desired feature by exploiting and exploring the input search space. Therefore, researchers used the meta-heuristics algorithms in BOF method for achieving better accuracy.
Tiwari et al. [30] depicted the effective BOF method, utilizing whale optimization algorithm and tested it on blue histology dataset. Kumar et al. [31] presented the comparative analysis using bag of visual words method on KIMIA Path960 histopathological images for performing classification. Pal et al. [32] developed enhanced BOF method by contributing SBBO (spiral biogeography-based optimization) meta-heuristics technique to perform classification on histopathology images. The generation of optimal visual words is done using SBBO in BOF. Thus, the optimal cluster center is determined to provide the best solution. The different connective tissues in the histopathological images are classified using SVM. Rachapudi et al. [33] presented a BOF method utilizing a novel random salp swarm algorithm to improve the medical image classification. The comparative analysis is performed for computing quality metrics with five different meta-heuristics based BOF method. Díaz et al. [34] presented an algorithm in which the local region in the stained histopathological image is extracted using SIFT descriptors of stained components and applied probabilistic latent semantic analysis method (pLSA) for classification. Zhang et al. [35] depicted a model based on multi-scale non-sparse coding for medical image classification. The developed method extracts the feature descriptors and produces the histogram. BOF method uses the k-mean algorithm to determine the clusters and forming the visual vocabulary to form the codebook.
Kaushal et al. [36] performed the analysis of different feature extraction and classification technique on BreaKHis dataset. The experimental result are computed on quality metrics parameters, such as F-measure, recall, accuracy, precision, and G-mean. Furthermore, image representation in BOF also plays an important role. Shi et al. [37] presented NLLSC (non-negative factorisation and Laplacian sparse coding) method for image representation and classification. The technique preserves the local information and reduces the uncertainty of sparse coding. However, the different variants [3840] of sparse coding usually fail to examine multi-scale layers of image and essential contextual dimension information from different patch regions of the image. Pal et al. [41] introduced the approach for searching key point based on grey relational analysis BOF method. The results present that bag of visual words technique gives better accuracy. Sanchez-Morillo et al. [42] proposed BOF combined with KAZE features to classify malignant and benign on breakHis histopathology images. The extracted key points are outlined with histogram vector utilizing K-mean clustering given as input to a binary SVM classifier. Hashimoto et al. [43] showed the tissue classification of liver H &E-stained histopathology image based on BOF. The observation states that the average classification is increased by applying BOF on selected spectra of RGB histology image. Beagum et al. [44] employed BOF for feature extraction and selection. Furthermore, an SVM is implemented for classification on microscopic images and good accuracy is obtained. Mhala et al. [45] extracted features using the SIFT method and applied BOF on image feature descriptors.
Moreover, Pal et al. [46] presented the four different folds of a BOF technique such as extraction, codebook building, encoding, and classification. The weighted two-dimensional vector quantisation encoding method is contributed in BOF to improve the classification. Cao et al. [47] proposed a method for semantic visual words based on BOVW, applying probabilistic latent semantic analysis. However, the K-means clustering algorithm is used in BOF to obtain visual words. The method traps into local optimum due to biasness towards initial seeds. Thus, the defects of BOVW cannot be adequately solved. Therefore, this paper introduces an enhanced effective BOF method to overcome the limitations and challenges by introducing a new variant of cat swarm optimization technique for clustering the visual words and new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling method for the representation of optimal visual words.

Cat swarm optimization

Swarm intelligence (SI) [48] based optimization algorithms are inspired by the characteristics of animals. Cat swarm optimization is a recently developed SI-based algorithm working on the behaviour of cat in two modes, namely seeking mode and tracing mode. Generally, a cat functions with high curiosity and alertness for catching the prey in the respective surrounding. The population of a cat are randomly allocated in N-dimensional search space. Each cat occupies the position and velocities in N-dimension space, flag value to determine whether the cat is in seeking mode or tracing mode, a fitness function to compute the value for a new position. In seeking mode, during resting, the cat observes the surrounding and determines the position or movement [22]. The seeking mode contains four necessary attributes; (i) SRD (looking for a range of specified dimension), (ii) SMP (seeking or discovering memory puddle), (iii) SPC (self-position consideration), and (iv) CDC (number of dimensions to be updated). In the tracing stage, the cat changes its velocity depending upon the prey speed and position. One of the merit of CSO is the parallel performance of local exploitation and global exploration. In certain methods, such as PSO, GA, and ABC, this may generate higher computation time. However, the cat exploration and exploitation to find prey can be improved by introducing reinforcement learning to discover an optimal solution. It overcomes from the demerit of CSO as cat becomes more adaptive and adjusts towards the behaviour based on gathered experience. The detailed procedure of CSO is presented below.
1.
Generate the random population of cats and sprinkle in N-dimensional space. Furthermore, the velocity is assigned to each cat randomly according to the maximum range of velocity value.
 
2.
Assignment of the flag to each cat based on mixture ratio (MR). Sort them into tracing mode or seeking process, respectively.
 
3.
Compute the fitness value of each cat and determine the best-obtained position in search space.
 
4.
Depending on their flag, move the cat in the seeking process or tracing process.
 
5.
Examine the termination condition. If the criteria is satisfied, terminate the process; else, repeat Step 3 and 4.
 

Proposed methodology

This paper proposes a new BOF approach for efficient classification of H &E-stained histopathological images. A detailed flow graph is presented in Fig. 2. Before applying the new BOF, Gaussian filtering is applied on images for removing the noise and improving the quality. In Gaussian filter, angle consider standard deviation of 0.5. For the feature extraction, a total of 106 statistical, structural, and texture set of features are extracted for effective classification [49]. Here, 19 features from GLCM (gray-level covariance matrices) [50], 7 features from GLRLM (gray-level run length matrices), 4 features from GLDM (gray-level dependency matrix), 59 features from LBP (local binary pattern), 6 features from HOG (histogram of the oriented gradient) [53], and 5 features from SIFT (scale-invariant feature transformation) are extracted. These features help in exploring and visualizing the patterns in histopathology images [54, 55]. In GLCM [56], gray co-matrix function examines the spatial relationship of pixels. GLDM [57] computes the gray-level difference approach probability density function for the given image and determines the feature descriptors. GLRLM evaluates the count of gray-level runs of varying length. In LBP, the image transformation occurs by thresholding each pixel’s neighborhood and processing the result in a binary number. HOG method uses the orientation of localized portions and gradients of pixel values in the image to create the histogram of the regions. SIFT method determines the key points that is invariant to rotation or scale.
The proposed method determines the optimal visual words using reinforcement cat swarm optimization (RCSO) and k-means algorithm for clustering followed by histogram representation for frequency of each visual words in images through weighted Gaussian mixture modelling. The following sections present the RCSO algorithm, RCSO-based clustering method, feature representation method, and classification process of histopathology images.

Reinforcement cat swarm optimization

The proposed RCSO algorithm improves the exploration and exploitation of cat swarm optimization by introducing learning and reinforcement phases to determine the optimal solution. The learning and reinforcement process enables the cat to become adaptive towards the environment by adjusting their behaviour based on gathered experience and information to find the local optima. RCSO composed of two modes of behavioural mechanism, namely improved seeking and tracing method for maintaining a good balance between exploration and exploitation. Every cat acquires its own position consisting of N-dimension solution space, fitness value assisting cat to the fitness function, cat velocities for each dimension, cumulative reward, and the flag to indicate whether the cat is in seeking or tracing mode. The detailed description of the proposed method for solving the optimizing problem and providing the best position is demonstrated in the following section.

Improved seeking phase

In the reinforced seeking model, there are two possibilities, i.e., (i) cat is either resting or looking around in environment and (ii) seeking for next position to be moved. Therefore, five important factors are used in improved seeking mode represented as seeking memory pool (MP) for depicting the size of memory of each cat, a number of dimensions required to be changed or mutated (CDC), range of the selected extent (SRD) for calculating the difference between old and new value or finding mutative ratio, reward point position (RPP) to intensify the search, and consideration of self-position (CSP) which decides the candidate position for movement [58]. The required steps for the same are mentioned below.
1.
Create k copies of the present position of \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j\) where \(k= MP\). If the value of CSP is true and let \(k= MP-1\), then restore the current position of the cat as one of the candidates.
 
2.
According to CDC, for each copy or candidate, a new position is evaluated using Eq. (1). Moreover, reward (RW) [59] requires to compute the component of \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \), as shown in Eq. (3) and (4), respectively. \(\alpha \) element depicts the difference between the new position and previous position. It helps to attain the autonomous experience, and thus helps to intensify the search in a promising region effectively. \(\beta \) component shows the social learning effect evolved over time, supporting the exploration of search space
$$\begin{aligned} Y_{np}= Y_{np}^{\prime } \pm RW, \end{aligned}$$
(1)
$$\begin{aligned} Y_{np}^{\prime }=( 1 \pm SRD * rn) * Y_{cp}, \end{aligned}$$
(2)
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha = |Y_{np}^{\prime } - Y_{cp} |, \end{aligned}$$
(3)
$$\begin{aligned} \beta = Y_{cp} \times \exp (-al \times rn\times t \times \mathrm{{mean}}(cat_j)), \end{aligned}$$
(4)
$$\begin{aligned} al =al_\mathrm{{min}}+ ((al_\mathrm{{max}} - al_\mathrm{{min}} / \mathrm{{max}}_{t} ) \times t, \end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$\begin{aligned} RW = \{^{\alpha - \beta \mathrm{{if}} i < n / 2}_{r1 \times (r2 \times \beta ) - \alpha , \mathrm{{Otherwise}} }. \end{aligned}$$
(6)
Here, \(Y_{np}^{\prime }\) is initial new position, \(Y_{np}\) is final new position, and \(Y_{cp}\) is the current position. The rn represents the random number {0, 1}, t is iteration, \(\mathrm{{mean}}(cat_j)\) shows the mean of current position of cat j in population \(C_j\), al depicts adaptive learning factor which maintains stability between exploration and exploitation, and \(al_\mathrm{{max}}\) and \(al_\mathrm{{min}}\) are the maximum and minimum value of learning factor, respectively. r1 and r2 show the uniform random numbers, i represents the current index value of cat, and n represents the number of cats in the seeking mode.
 
3.
Evaluate the fitness values (FV) for a new position. If all fitness values are precisely equal, then each candidate point has selection probability = 1; otherwise, compute the selecting probability using Eq. (7)
$$\begin{aligned} P_j = \frac{|FV_j - FV_a|}{|FV_\mathrm{{max}}-FV_\mathrm{{min}}|}, \end{aligned}$$
(7)
where \(P_j\) shows the probability of a current candidate \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j, FV_j = FV_\mathrm{{max}}\) for maximization problem and \(FV_j = FV_\mathrm{{min}}\) in minimization situation. The \(FV_\mathrm{{max}}\) and \(FV_\mathrm{{min}}\) show the maximum and minimum values of fitness function, respectively.
 
4.
Using the roulette wheel, randomly choose the position to move from candidate point and substitute the position of \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j\).
 

Improved tracing mode

In tracing mode, the cat chases the prey and outlines the targets [60]. After finding the prey, the cat determines its velocity and position in N dimension search space depending upon the prey’s speed and position. The experience and historical information are also considered for computing the new position. Thus, the velocity of \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j\) in RCSO algorithm is updated using Eq. (8)
$$\begin{aligned} U_{j,M}= U_{j,M}+ rn_1* n_1 (Y_{\mathrm{{best}},M}- Y_{j,M}). \end{aligned}$$
(8)
Here, \(U_{j,M}\) shows the velocity of cat j at dimension N, \(rn_1\) represents the random value varying from a range of [0, 1], \(Y_{\mathrm{{best}},M}\) depicts the best position of cat, and \(Y_{j,M}\) represents the position of \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j\).
However, if the velocity of the cat exceeds the maximum velocity, then set the velocity to maximum velocity. Moreover, the new position of cat is updated using Eq. (10). Thus, it explores the search space and exploits using previous information to obtain the best optimal position
$$\begin{aligned}&U_{j,M,\mathrm{{new}}}= U_{j,M,\mathrm{{old}}}+ U_{j,M}, \end{aligned}$$
(9)
$$\begin{aligned}&Y_{np}= \{^{Y_{cp}- [y_{cp} + \exp \{r1 \times (\mathrm{{mean}}(\mathrm{{cat}}_j)-y_{cp})\}], U_{j,M,new} \le U_{j,M,old} }_ {Y_{cp} -[ r2 \times [ y_{cp} -\exp \{ r1 \times (\mathrm{{mean}}(\mathrm{{cat}}_j)-y_{cp})\}]] U_{j,M,\mathrm{{new}}} > U_{j,M,\mathrm{{old}}} },\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$
(10)
where, \(U_{j,M,\mathrm{{new}}}\) and \(U_{j,M,\mathrm{{old}}}\) represent the new position and current position of \(\mathrm{{cat}}_j\) respectively. The complete algorithm of RCSO has been depicted in Algorithm 1.

Optimal visual words using RCSO

This paper proposes a New BOF (NBOF) method by introducing a new clustering method based on RCSO to determine the optimal cluster centroids. The visual words are formed by aggregating the features into different cluster centers. Furthermore, assembly of these visual words is referred to as codebook. The clustering method in NBOF is described below.
1.
A total of 106 statistical and texture features are extracted in N dimensions using GLCM, GLDM, GLRLM, LBP, and HOG methods from histopathological images.
 
2.
New BOF technique is developed for computing the optimal bag of visual words using the following RCSO-based clustering method.
(a)
K-mean clustering technique is applied on a set of features, represented as \(\{d_1,d_2,d_3.....d_M\}\) where \(d_M \in Z^N\), to determine the L cluster centers \(\{q_1,q_2,q_3.....q_L\}\) where \(q_L \in Z^N\).
 
(b)
Initialize the population of cat, such that each cat represents image of \(d_n\) features.
 
(c)
Compute the fitness value using the objective function, as shown in Eq. (11)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{{Minimize }} \rho (d_M ,q_L )= \sum _{i-1}^M \sum _{j=1}^L||d_M ,q_L ||^2, \end{aligned}$$
(11)
where \(\rho \) depicts the density of clusters whose purpose is to minimize the compactness.
 
(d)
Evaluate the best solution by improving the velocity and position of a cat using the RCSO algorithm.
 
(e)
Repeat Step (c) to (d) until the termination condition is achieved.
 
(f)
Determine the best optimal position.
 
 

Feature representation using new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling

In this work, new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling is used to represent the image. The detailed process is presented below.
1.
Compute the weighted probability density function (PDF) \(T_p (L) \) by modifying the PDF T(L) for each sub histogram \(HG_1 (L)\) of visual words using pre-computed values of \(T_\mathrm{{max}}\), \(T_\mathrm{{min}}\), \(\mu _i\) and Eq. (12)
$$\begin{aligned} T_p (L)= T_\mathrm{{max}}\frac{(T(l) - T_\mathrm{{max}})}{(T_\mathrm{{max}} - T_\mathrm{{min}} )}^\alpha +\beta ,(l_i \le k \le u_i), \end{aligned}$$
(12)
where \(T_\mathrm{{max}}\) is a maximum value of visual words, \(T_\mathrm{{min}}\) is minimum value of visual words, and \(\mu _i\) is accumulative probability value (\(\mu _ i=\sum T(L),\sum _{i=0}^{2^{r-1}}\mu _ i=1 \)). By adjusting the value of ŝ, the degree of mean contrast enhancement and brightness ( ŝ \(> 0\)) are controlled.
 
2.
Calculate the resultant weighted and normalized PDF \(T_{pw} (L)\) of modified PDF \(T_p (L)\) using Eq. (13)
$$\begin{aligned} T_{pw} (L)=\frac{T_p (L)}{ \sum _{j=0)}^{l-1}T_p (j) }. \end{aligned}$$
(13)
 
3.
GMM (Gaussian mixture modelling) is applied to perform histogram equalization on \(2^r\) curve segments separately. The Gaussian component equalizes the area by considering the probability of each element in interval [\(T_{pw} (L), T_{pw} (L+1)\) ], as shown in Eq. (14)
$$\begin{aligned} S_p = arg max (F_{wi}(T_{pw}(L+1))-F_{wi} (T_{pw} (L))). \end{aligned}$$
(14)
 
4.
Ensure that the Gaussian distribution \(S_p\) is in the region between [\(T_{pw} (L), T_{pw} (L+1)\) ] and is equivalent to the region under the Gaussian distribution \(S_{p}^{\prime }\) between interval [\(Y_{pw} (L), Y_{pw} (L+1)\) ] by solving Eq. (15) and Eq. (16) simultaneously
$$\begin{aligned} F_{wi} (T_{pw} (L))= F_{wi}\prime (Y_{pw} (L)), \end{aligned}$$
(15)
$$\begin{aligned} F_{wi} (T_{pw} (L+1))= F_{wi}\prime (Y_{pw} (L+1)). \end{aligned}$$
(16)
 
5.
Consider all the Gaussian components for finding the mapping from x to y and retaining the equal distribution of visual words in input and output intervals, respectively, i.e., [\(T_{pw} (L), T_{pw} (L+1)\) ]. Here, y represents the output value, calculated by using Eq. (17) and can be visualized in Fig. 3. The bin in histogram is obtained by the count of visual words available in image. Moreover, the generated histogram and prior annotations are used to train the classifier
$$\begin{aligned} y= \sum _{i=1}^N (\frac{(T_{pw}- \mu _{wi}}{\sigma _{wi }} \sigma _{wi}\prime + \mu _{wi}\prime ) F_{wi}, \end{aligned}$$
(17)
where \(\mu _{wi}\) represents mean of Gaussian component and \(\sigma _{wi}\) is the standard deviation value of Gaussian component. The pseudocode of weighted GMM is presented in Algorithm 2.
 

Classification

The proposed NBOF method uses SVM and MLP techniques to classify the histopathological images. After obtaining the optimal visual words using RCSO, image is encoded into histogram using new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling, depicting the frequency count of each visual word in image. Furthermore, the image annotation along with encoded histogram is used to train the network. SVM maintains the hyperplane or decision boundary for performing classification on histology image. MLP network consists of three layers, namely input, hidden, and output layers, and applies backpropagation for training and testing the network.
Table 1
Parameters’ values used in RCSO algorithm
Algorithm
Parameter
Values
RCSO
Num-RUN
10
 
NUM-cat
100
 
Mortality rate
2
 
Seeking memory pool (MP)
5
 
Seeking range of the selected dimension (SRD)
20
 
Number of dimension
10
 
v-max
1
 
Max-iterations
[50,100,500,1000]

Experimental results

In this work, the proposed method has been tested on histopatholgical image datasets. The datasets consist of 640 stained tissue histopathological images collected from two separate databases, i.e., ADL (Animal Diagnostic lab), Pennsylvania State University [61] and Break His [62]. The crop-resize histopathological image of dimension 700x490 with 24 bit depth is extracted. The histopathological image datasets comprise images of four organs, namely Spleen, Kidney, Lung, and Breast scanned at 40x optical magnification. Extensive experimental analysis is implemented on python 3.6 using environment configuration as Intel core i7 with 2.2 GHz speed, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA Geforce GTX1080 ti 4GB, and Windows 10 operating system. Series of the simulation were conducted for computing the performance of NBOF. Parameter tuning is performed for generating optimal value using RCSO and is depicted in Table 1. Moreover, Table 2 illustrates the SVM and MLP parameters considered for classification.
Table 2
Parameters’ values used by the classification methods
Algorithm
Parameter
Values
SVM
Kernel
Rbf
 
Max iteration
200
 
Tolerance
0.001
 
Train: Test set
7:3
ANN
Layers
2
 
Activation function
relu, Softmax
 
Learning rate
0.001
 
Max iterations
200
 
Solver
Adam
 
Train: Test set
7:3
Table 3
Comparative analysis of proposed RCSO algorithm
Function
Fitness
PSO
WOA
CSO
LOA
RCSO
f1
Best
0.000257
28.8036
5.724712
2389.402
1.97E-07
 
Mean
232.0884
15828931
1.445219
2389.402
0.0053
f2
Best
2.00E-05
69266.55
5.76E-09
156758.2
2.03E-12
 
Mean
0.693179
87154.71
1.72E-06
186758.2
0.070179
f3
Best
5.28E-24
7.79E-07
2.66E-07
3.85E-18
9.05E-07
 
Mean
0.001469
7105.738
9.24E-05
0.062526
1.52E-06
f4
Best
0.000213
5.61E-07
3.19E-06
5.61E-07
1.52E-17
 
Mean
0.000931
1380.82
0.000214
2768.104
7.67016
f5
Best
0.000951
0.005127
4.27E-12
0.488691
7.34E-10
 
Mean
0.009545
0.133818
1.55E-06
0.481997
1.68E-09
f6
Best
4.9748
0.49031
1671.331
142.3428
1.63E-10
 
Mean
10.16213
969.6008
1278.424
160.3428
0.644486
f7
Best
5.9698
0.00483
4.76E-05
158.2046
0.438245
 
Mean
0.99
0.064074
0.000319
142526.3
1.45349
f8
Best
1.50E-32
8.56E-11
5.17E-08
9.92E-16
5.30E-09
 
Mean
0.00013
0.213897
0.765501
2.96E-15
5.52E-08
f9
Best
4150.376
10660.44
5.28E-13
9891.05
8.39E-15
 
Mean
4150.491
10670.4
6.40E-09
9991.05
2.49E-11
f10
Best
3.5883
28.936
0.396124
10101720
4.11E-05
 
Mean
161.8155
0.01676
0.396175
1798847
0.765501
f11
Best
1249.101
5471.709
251.3923
3861.069
5.44E-03
 
Mean
1249.396
6042.879
251.9111
38412.14
0.024879
f12
Best
2.6905
8.696111
0.767908
2002.179
9.67E-07
 
Mean
71.71807
5.89E+08
0.709621
2865.179
0.161264
f13
Best
888.6588
4206.628
26.56559
3890.199
7.32E-12
 
Mean
891.2101
5501.522
29.16359
93440.34
7.193768
f14
Best
1.7953
5798
0.502111
582.7025
0.016868
 
Mean
31.38415
4456.6
3.036299
650.7025
0.072822
f15
Best
2507.651
6290.522
0.18462
6327.491
0.589084
 
Mean
2542.758
3.22E+08
1.118485
68757.49
0.953863
f16
Best
1256.867
3782.438
88.32081
3911.25
2.71E-07
 
Mean
1359.026
2.08E+08
88.39092
6.23E+10
0.003276
f17
Best
4192.371
2513.897
0.10199
2617.617
4.14E-10
 
Mean
4199.564
3020.211
0.771033
32675.35
0.00325
f18
Best
1678.621
5036.485
0.291636
5855.046
1.608229
 
Mean
1723.669
8.54E+08
0.235164
59850.46
7.89E-07
f19
Best
980.5494
2522.591
86.31045
2640.288
1.323525
 
Mean
897.4945
1.09E+09
86.31326
28802.88
1.07676
f20
Best
1.21E-05
2.42E-05
300.1
1.58E-05
1.92E-06
 
Mean
0.35965
2.96E-05
300.1419
1.95E-05
1.38E-06
f21
BEST
890.7466
2563.897
425.808
2590.398
2.24E-13
 
Mean
891.9347
3416.514
425.808
45305.3
1.190651
f22
Best
1441.107
3113.897
731.9426
3252.172
0.022183
 
Mean
1442.706
3770.202
732.0286
35707.58
0.007548
f23
Best
1.42E-06
2.82E-05
1000.673
0.000238
15.73895
 
Mean
5.42E-06
0.00057
1001.521
0.000598
18.75235
f24
Best
1.92E-07
4.50E-06
1089.914
2.29E-05
392.2971
 
Mean
2.02E-07
8.38E-06
1090.244
2.89E-05
910.2065
f25
Best
1.51E-07
1.05E-05
0.003866
1.67E-06
0.433073
 
Mean
2.55E-07
9.48E-05
0.00517
1.80E-06
0.002625
f26
Best
1.84E-08
3.32E-05
1501.362
8.29E-06
14.51019
 
Mean
1.93E-08
1.16E-05
1501.982
9.09E-06
132.6079
f27
Best
5.76E-11
3.52E-08
300.1401
1.11E-07
2.25E-15
 
Mean
2.03E-11
4.21E-08
301.2577
4.53E-07
1.93E-14
f28
Best
3.45E-08
2.22E+08
2.87E-08
2.38E-06
4.88E-12
 
Mean
3.45E-08
8.76E-08
3.01E-08
1.48E-07
3.75E-12
f29
Best
4.78E+10
6.43E+08
1951.485
3.25E+10
490.3112
 
Mean
5762783
4.80E+10
1891.485
3.29E+10
403.1123
The best values are in bold

Performance evaluation of RCSO

The CEC 2017 benchmark test function problems contain unimodal functions (\(Fn_1- Fn_3\)), multimodal functions (\(Fn_4-Fn_{10}\)), hybrid functions (\(Fn_{11}-Fn_{19}\)), and composition functions (\(Fn_{20}-Fn_{29}\)). The search space of each benchmark function is represented as \([-100,100]^D\), where D is the dimension. The number of iterations over 20 runs, population size, and dimensions are considered as 1000, 60, and 50, respectively. The comparative analysis is performed on the state-of-the-art algorithms to determine the effectiveness of RCSO. Table 3 shows the comparative analysis of unimodal functions (\(Fn_1- Fn_3\)), multimodal functions (\(Fn_4-Fn_{10}\)), hybrid functions (\(Fn_{11}-Fn_{19}\)), and composition functions (\(Fn_{20}-Fn_{29}\)) in the context of obtained mean and the best fitness values. The observation depicts that RCSO provides better mean and the best fitness values for 20 benchmark functions which are the highest among the state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, the convergence trend is depicted on representative benchmark problems, namely \(Fn_{1}\), \(Fn_{4}\), \(Fn_{11}\), and \(Fn_{21}\), are shown in Fig. 4. From the figure, it can be observed that proposed RCSO algorithm converges towards the global optimum as compared to other methods. Thus, it can be stated that RCSO exploits effectively for exploring the optimal solution. Therefore, the demonstration shows that RCSO outperforms and gives significant results when compared with other meta-heuristics algorithms.
Moreover, for statistical analysis, Kruskal–Wallis, Wilcoxon, and Friedman tests have been performed at 95% of the confidence interval to validate the acquired results. The formulated hypothesis is mentioned below.
1.
\(H_0\) (Null hypothesis) determines that all the samples are significantly equal.
 
2.
\(H_1\) (Alternate hypothesis) determines that there is a significant difference among the samples.
 
The statistical tests were conducted on the best and mean fitness values on benchmark functions. The considered sample size (n) to apply test is 29 drawn from each algorithm. The Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon test are the non-parametric statistical tests that balance the paired group. In Tables 4 and 5, five pairs are created, namely, RCSO-PSO, RCSO - WOA, RCSO-CSO, and RCSO-LOA. Hence, to determine the correct behaviour of the algorithm, multiple comparisons have been experimented. From the tables, it can be observed that the estimated p value for each pair is less than 0.05. Therefore, \(H_0\) can be rejected. Moreover, Friedman’s test gives the minimum mean and the the best rank values for RCSO as compared to other meta-heuristics techniques as depicted in Table 6. Hence, RCSO provides significant results for the best and mean fitness values.

Performance analysis of NBOF method

Table 4
Statistical analysis using Wilcoxon test
Algorithm A
Algorithm B
Fitness
Statistics
p-value
RCSO
PSO
Best
81.0
0.003
  
Mean
71.0
0.001
 
WOA
Best
57.0
0.000
  
Mean
49.0
0.000
 
CSO
Best
74.0
0.001
  
Mean
58.0
0.000
 
LOA
Best
44.0
0.000
  
Mean
35.0
0.000
The best values are in bold
Table 5
Statistical analysis using Kruskal–Wallis test
Algorithm A
Algorithm B
Fitness
Statistics
p-value
RCSO
PSO
Best
6.386
0.011
  
Mean
4.910
0.026
 
WOA
Best
13.298
0.000
  
Mean
10.312
0.001
 
CSO
Best
7.196
0.007
  
Mean
4.539
0.033
 
LOA
Best
13.073
0.000
  
Mean
10.312
0.001
The best values are in bold
The proposed new bag-of-features (NBOF) method generates and represents the optimal visual words. The performance of NBOF is measured on classification of 640 stained tissue histopathological images, collected from two separate databases, containing four organs, namely Spleen, Kidney, Lung, and Breast. However, 120 histopathological images are considered for each organ. The RCSO-BOF algorithm is compared with the existing state-of-art algorithms and classified the dataset using two methods, namely, SVM and MLP. The quality parameters considered for computing the effectiveness of algorithms are recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy. Tables 7 and 8 show the results achieved by applying SVM and MLP classifiers. The average recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy obtained for RCSO-based BOF using SVM method are 0.80, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.70, respectively. Moreover, overall recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy obtained using MLP technique are 0.79, 0.77, 0.77, and 0.75, respectively. Both the classifiers provide the promising results as compared to other state-of-the-art algorithms. The observations and estimated values in Tables 7 and 8 show that RCSO-based BOF method outperforms the other different classification methods and gives appropriate experimental results for all the parameters.
Table 6
Mean rank and the best rank of the algorithms using Friedman test
Algorithm
Mean value rank
Best value rank
RCSO
1.758621
1.931034
PSO
2.689655
2.724138
WOA
2.724138
3.62069
CSO
3.827586
2.724138
LOA
4
3.965517
The best values are in bold
Table 7
Comparative classification analysis of RCSO-BOF based on SVM
Category
Parameters
PSO-BOF [63]
WOA-BOF [23]
CSO-BOF [22]
LOA-BOF [25]
RCSO-BOF
Lung
Recall
0.91
0.38
0.66
0.60
0.95
 
Precision
0.67
0.64
0.67
0.56
0.68
 
F1-measure
0.55
0.66
0.66
0.60
0.77
 
Accuracy
0.56
0.633
0.66
0.60
0.73
Kidney
Recall
0.69
0.55
0.64
0.67
0.74
 
Precision
0.68
0.55
0.63
0.68
0.74
 
F1-measure
0.67
0.54
0.63
0.67
0.74
 
Accuracy
0.67
0.54
0.64
0.67
0.75
Breast
Recall
0.71
0.48
0.60
0.60
0.80
 
Precision
0.63
0.57
0.62
0.59
0.71
 
F1-measure
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.60
0.71
 
Accuracy
0.59
0.56
0.62
0.60
0.70
Spleen
Recall
0.53
0.52
0.50
0.53
0.71
 
Precision
0.53
0.52
0.57
0.53
0.71
 
F1-measure
0.53
0.51
0.41
0.53
0.63
 
Accuracy
0.53
0.51
0.57
0.53
0.62
Average
Recall
0.71
0.48
0.60
0.60
0.80
 
Precision
0.62
0.57
0.62
0.59
0.71
 
F1-measure
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.60
0.71
 
Accuracy
0.59
0.56
0.62
0.60
0.70
Furthermore, Figs. 5 and 6 depict the bar graphs for the results, gathered by applying SVM and MLP, respectively, on Lung, Kidney, Breast, and Spleen. The pictorial representations show that the proposed algorithm (RCSO-BOF) covers the larger region than other considered algorithms, namely, PSO-BOF, WOA-BOF, CSO-BOF, and LOA-BOF, for both the SVM and MLP. Thus, the observation states that RCSO-BOF-based method provides better results in comparison to other approaches.
Furthermore, the confusion matrices are shown in Tables 9 and 10 for classification of benign and malignant histopathological images. Table 9 shows the confusion matrix of lung and kidney histology images based on RCSO-BOF method using SVM and MLP classifiers. Table 10 shows the confusion matrix of spleen and breast histology images based on RCSO-BOF method using SVM and MLP classifiers. From Tables 9 and 10, it can be visualized that the correctly identified lung, kidney, spleen, and breast tissues for benign category using SVM technique are 73%, 100%, 96%, and 80%, respectively. Furthermore, it can be observed that the malignant category acquires true-positive values for lung, kidney, spleen, and breast tissues as 73%, 70%, 76%, and 75%, respectively. However, MLP method provides lung, kidney, spleen, and breast tissues for benign category based on RCSO-BOF as 93%, 100%, 80%, and 84%, respectively. Moreover, malignant category obtains true-positive values as 66%, 89%, 98%, and 88%, respectively, using MLP classifier. From the results analysis, it can be stated that the proposed NBOF method outperforms the other state-of-the-art methods.
Table 8
Comparative classification analysis of RCSO-BOF based on MLP
Category
Parameters
PSO-BOF [63]
WOA-BOF [23]
CSO-BOF [22]
LOA-BOF [25]
RCSO-BOF
Lung
Recall
0.77
0.71
0.69
0.64
0.80
 
Precision
0.57
0.67
0.69
0.62
0.79
 
F1-measure
0.56
0.67
0.69
0.63
0.79
 
Accuracy
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.63
0.80
Kidney
Recall
0.73
0.73
0.64
0.69
0.76
 
Precision
0.68
0.75
0.78
0.73
0.75
 
F1-measure
0.70
0.74
0.71
0.68
0.75
 
Accuracy
0.71
0.74
0.71
0.71
0.77
Breast
Recall
0.71
0.67
0.66
0.68
0.79
 
Precision
0.61
0.66
0.70
0.65
0.77
 
F1-measure
0.60
0.65
0.68
0.62
0.77
 
Accuracy
0.62
0.66
0.68
0.64
0.75
Spleen
Recall
0.65
0.56
0.63
0.70
0.80
 
Precision
0.59
0.56
0.64
0.60
0.77
 
F1-measure
0.53
0.55
0.63
0.54
0.76
 
Accuracy
0.57
0.55
0.63
0.59
0.70
Average
Recall
0.71
0.67
0.66
0.68
0.79
 
Precision
0.61
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.77
 
F1-measure
0.60
0.65
0.68
0.62
0.77
 
Accuracy
0.62
0.66
0.68
0.64
0.75
The best values are in bold
Moreover, the computational time complexity of the proposed algorithm is compared with existing methods and is shown in Table 11. The observation depicts that the time taken by the proposed RCSO is lesser (140.12) than the other meta-heuristic algorithms. The convergence speed of the PSO is worst, because it took maximum computational time (195.612) to reach the global solution. Therefore, the result analysis indicates that RCSO has a higher tendency of convergence to the global optimum. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the proposed RCSO is a cost-effective computational method and can converge to a global optimum solution quickly.
Table 9
Confusion matrix for lung and kidney image classification
Classifiers
Class
 
Lung
 
Kidney
Method
  
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
 
SVM
Benign
0.40
0.80
0.80
0.20
PSO-BOF
  
0.60
0.26
0.66
0.33
WOA-BOF
  
0.60
0.26
0.53
0.40
CSO-BOF
  
0.60
0.46
0.73
0.40
LOA-BOF
  
0.73
0.33
1.0
0.33
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.06
0.73
0.46
0.60
PSO-BOF
  
0.46
0.66
0.60
0.46
WOA-BOF
  
0.40
0.73
0.33
0.64
CSO-BOF
  
0.33
0.60
0.26
0.66
LOA-BOF
  
0.20
0.73
0.13
0.70
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.86
0.33
0.73
0.26
PSO-BOF
  
0.40
0.46
0.73
0.26
WOA-BOF
  
0.60
0.26
0.73
0.20
CSO-BOF
  
0.73
0.33
0.80
0.13
LOA-BOF
  
0.93
0.13
1.0
0.26
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.46
0.33
0.33
0.73
PSO-BOF
  
0.13
0.60
0.26
0.80
WOA-BOF
  
0.33
0.50
0.40
0.73
CSO-BOF
  
0.40
0.53
0.46
0.46
LOA-BOF
  
0.26
0.66
0.20
0.89
RCSO-BOF
The best values are in bold
Table 10
Confusion matrix for spleen and breast image classification
Classifiers
Class
 
Spleen
 
Breast
Method
  
Benign
Malignant
Benign
Malignant
 
SVM
Benign
0.93
0.73
0.71
0.57
PSO-BOF
  
0.86
0.53
0.71
0.37
WOA-BOF
  
0.66
0.33
0.73
0.33
CSO-BOF
  
0.93
0.66
0.75
0.51
LOA-BOF
  
0.96
0.53
0.80
0.40
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.73
0.73
0.42
0.68
PSO-BOF
  
0.55
0.73
0.68
0.62
WOA-BOF
  
0.33
0.60
0.62
0.71
CSO-BOF
  
0.50
0.73
0.46
0.66
LOA-BOF
  
0.26
0.76
0.20
0.75
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.46
0.50
0.68
0.60
PSO-BOF
  
0.53
0.46
0.68
0.4
WOA-BOF
  
0.60
0.33
0.64
0.46
CSO-BOF
  
0.40
0.62
0.71
0.55
LOA-BOF
  
0.80
0.53
0.84
0.40
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.13
0.93
0.31
0.80
PSO-BOF
  
0.93
0.80
0.44
0.86
WOA-BOF
  
0.46
0.91
0.40
0.75
CSO-BOF
  
0.06
0.94
0.31
0.82
LOA-BOF
  
0.53
0.98
0.33
0.88
RCSO-BOF
The best values are in bold
Table 11
Computational time taken
Algorithm
Average time in s
PSO
195.61
WOA
186.35
CSO
170.11
LOA
186.24
RCSO
140.12
The best values are in bold
Table 12
Comparative classification performance measures of lung images
    
Lung
   
Classifiers
Class
Recall
Accuracy
Specificity
Precision
Negative predictive value
Method
SVM
Benign
0.33
0.40
0.08
0.86
0.48
PSO-BOF
  
0.69
0.60
0.41
0.56
0.71
WOA-BOF
  
0.69
0.60
0.35
0.60
0.73
CSO-BOF
  
0.56
0.60
0.36
0.64
0.56
LOA-BOF
  
0.79
0.81
0.86
0.79
0.88
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.35
0.43
0.09
0.91
0.51
PSO-BOF
  
0.73
0.64
0.44
0.60
0.76
WOA-BOF
  
0.73
0.64
0.37
0.64
0.78
CSO-BOF
  
0.60
0.64
0.38
0.68
0.60
LOA-BOF
  
0.83
0.85
0.91
0.83
0.93
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.72
0.87
0.44
0.13
0.31
PSO-BOF
  
0.46
0.40
0.21
0.78
0.47
WOA-BOF
  
0.69
0.60
0.38
0.55
0.41
CSO-BOF
  
0.69
0.74
0.38
0.45
0.47
LOA-BOF
  
0.88
0.94
0.97
0.86
0.90
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.76
0.92
0.46
0.13
0.33
PSO-BOF
  
0.49
0.43
0.22
0.82
0.50
WOA-BOF
  
0.73
0.64
0.41
0.58
0.43
CSO-BOF
  
0.73
0.78
0.40
0.48
0.50
LOA-BOF
  
0.93
0.99
0.98
0.91
0.96
RCSO-BOF
Table 13
Comparative classification performance measures of kidney images
    
Kidney
   
Classifiers
Class
Recall
Accuracy
Specificity
Precision
Negative predictive value
Method
SVM
Benign
0.80
0.80
0.56
0.63
0.75
PSO-BOF
  
0.67
0.67
0.44
0.53
0.58
WOA-BOF
  
0.57
0.54
0.66
0.62
0.62
CSO-BOF
  
0.65
0.74
0.71
0.73
0.63
LOA-BOF
  
0.75
0.95
0.84
0.88
0.74
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.77
0.77
0.54
0.61
0.72
PSO-BOF
  
0.64
0.64
0.42
0.51
0.56
WOA-BOF
  
0.55
0.52
0.63
0.59
0.59
CSO-BOF
  
0.62
0.71
0.69
0.70
0.60
LOA-BOF
  
0.72
0.92
0.81
0.85
0.71
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.73
0.74
0.29
0.58
0.55
PSO-BOF
  
0.73
0.74
0.27
0.69
0.63
WOA-BOF
  
0.79
0.74
0.46
0.45
0.53
CSO-BOF
  
0.86
0.80
0.34
0.36
0.41
LOA-BOF
  
0.89
0.99
0.71
0.88
0.82
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.70
0.71
0.28
0.56
0.53
PSO-BOF
  
0.70
0.71
0.26
0.66
0.61
WOA-BOF
  
0.75
0.71
0.44
0.44
0.51
CSO-BOF
  
0.82
0.77
0.33
0.35
0.40
LOA-BOF
  
0.86
0.95
0.68
0.84
0.79
RCSO-BOF
Table 14
Comparative classification performance measures of spleen images
    
Spleen
   
Classifiers
Class
Recall
Accuracy
Specificity
Precision
Negative predictive value
Method
SVM
Benign
0.56
0.94
0.50
0.56
0.50
PSO-BOF
  
0.62
0.87
0.43
0.61
0.58
WOA-BOF
  
0.67
0.67
0.36
0.67
0.64
CSO-BOF
  
0.58
0.94
0.41
0.65
0.52
LOA-BOF
  
0.77
0.97
0.81
0.78
0.90
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.59
0.99
0.53
0.59
0.53
PSO-BOF
  
0.65
0.92
0.45
0.64
0.61
WOA-BOF
  
0.70
0.71
0.38
0.70
0.68
CSO-BOF
  
0.61
0.99
0.43
0.69
0.55
LOA-BOF
  
0.82
0.98
0.85
0.83
0.94
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.48
0.95
0.51
0.57
0.51
PSO-BOF
  
0.53
0.89
0.44
0.62
0.59
WOA-BOF
  
0.64
0.68
0.36
0.68
0.66
CSO-BOF
  
0.39
0.95
0.41
0.66
0.53
LOA-BOF
  
0.80
0.99
0.82
0.80
0.92
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.51
0.97
0.54
0.60
0.54
PSO-BOF
  
0.56
0.93
0.46
0.66
0.62
WOA-BOF
  
0.68
0.72
0.38
0.72
0.69
CSO-BOF
  
0.41
0.98
0.44
0.70
0.56
LOA-BOF
  
0.84
0.88
0.87
0.84
0.96
RCSO-BOF
Table 15
Comparative classification performance measures of breast images
    
Breast
   
Classifiers
Class
Recall
Accuracy
specificity
precision
negative predictive value
Method
SVM
Benign
0.55
0.71
0.62
0.63
0.54
PSO-BOF
  
0.65
0.71
0.47
0.51
0.62
WOA-BOF
  
0.69
0.74
0.53
0.54
0.68
CSO-BOF
  
0.60
0.76
0.59
0.62
0.57
LOA-BOF
  
0.67
0.80
0.79
0.80
0.65
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.50
0.64
0.56
0.56
0.49
PSO-BOF
  
0.59
0.64
0.43
0.46
0.56
WOA-BOF
  
0.62
0.66
0.48
0.49
0.61
CSO-BOF
  
0.54
0.68
0.53
0.56
0.51
LOA-BOF
  
0.60
0.72
0.71
0.72
0.59
RCSO-BOF
MLP
Benign
0.53
0.69
0.26
0.58
0.54
PSO-BOF
  
0.63
0.69
0.37
0.61
0.58
WOA-BOF
  
0.58
0.65
0.33
0.61
0.52
CSO-BOF
  
0.56
0.71
0.26
0.60
0.55
LOA-BOF
  
0.79
0.85
0.88
0.75
0.80
RCSO-BOF
 
Malignant
0.48
0.62
0.24
0.52
0.48
PSO-BOF
  
0.57
0.62
0.33
0.55
0.52
WOA-BOF
  
0.52
0.58
0.29
0.55
0.46
CSO-BOF
  
0.51
0.64
0.23
0.54
0.50
LOA-BOF
  
0.71
0.76
0.79
0.68
0.72
RCSO-BOF
On the basis of Tables 9 and 10, the comparison performance metrics of the considered methods for four categories, namely, lung, kidney, spleen, and breast, are computed and presented in Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15, respectively. In Table 12, the observation is shown for lung benign and malignant images. The acquired recall, accuracy, and specificity, precision, and negative predictive values for lung benign images by the proposed RCSO-BOF method are 0.79, 0.81, 0.86, 0.79, and 0.88 using SVM and 0.88, 0.94, 0.97, 0.86, and 0.90 using MLP, respectively. Moreover, the obtained values for malignant category are 0.83, 0.85, 0.91, 0.83, and 0.93 using SVM and 0.93, 0.99, 0.98, 0.91, and 0.96 using MLP, respectively. Furthermore, the recall, accuracy, specificity, precision, and negative predictive value for RCSO-BOF method on kidney benign images are shown in Table 13 as 0.75, 0.95, 0.84, 0.88, and 0.74 using SVM and 0.89, 0.99, 0.71, 0.88, and 0.82 using MLP. The results for malignant kidney images are 0.72, 0.92, 0.81, 0.85, and 0.71 based on SVM and 0.86, 0.95, 0.68, 0.84, and 0.79 based on MLP, respectively.
In Table 14, the observations for spleen benign images show that the obtained recall, accuracy, specificity, precision, and negative predictive values for RCSO-BOF method using SVM are 0.77, 0.97, 0.81, 0.78, 0.90, and 0.80 , 0.99, 0.82, 0.80, and 0.92 using MLP, respectively. Likewise, the obtained values for malignant spleen images are 0.82, 0.98, 0.85, 0.83, and 0.94 using SVM and 0.84, 0.88, 0.87, 0.84, and 0.96 using MLP, respectively. The results in Table 15 depict that the recall, accuracy, specificity, precision, and negative predictive values for RCSO-BOF method on breast benign images are 0.67, 0.80, 0.79 ,0.80, and 0.65 using SVM and 0.79, 0.85, 0.88, 0.75, and 0.80 using MLP, respectively. However, for the malignant category of spleen, the observation shows the acquired results as 0.60, 0.72, 0.71, 0.72, and 0.59 using SVM and 0.71, 0.76, 0.79, 0.68, and 0.72 using MLP, respectively. From the result analysis, it can be stated that the proposed NBOF method outperforms the other state-of-the-art methods. Hence, the NBOF method may be integrated for the support of the pathologists under various required legal procedures [51, 52].

Conclusion

Automated histopathological image classification plays a significant role in acquiring quantitative analysis and supports decision-making process. This paper uses different feature extraction methods, namely GLCM, GLRLM, GLDM, LBP, and HOG for gathering the features. Furthermore, the features are given into a new RCSO-based clustering method for determining the optimal visual words in BOF. The frequencies of each optimal visual features are demonstrated in the form of histogram using new weighted Gaussian mixture modelling in BOF. The generated BOF is given to SVM and MLP networks to classify benign or malignant along with different categories of histopathological images. RCSO algorithm provides the optimal solution and is tested on IEEE CEC 2017 benchmark standard functions. The convergence behaviour shows that RCSO provides more prominent results as compared to existing state-of-the-art algorithms. Furthermore, rigorous statistical test results validate the significance of the proposed algorithm. The experimental results of RCSO-BOF are analyzed and compared with PSO-BOF, WOA-BOF, CSO-BOF, and LOA-BOF methods.
In future work, RCSO algorithm may be used to quantify the tissue cells. Moreover, the accuracy and complexity of the classification system may be improved by fine-tuning of the parameters and using parallel algorithms, respectively. Furthermore, the integration of the developed algorithm with human intelligence may be explored for better learning and decision-making. However, such integration should follow the legal procedures for the human safety and liability implications of AI.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.​

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Petushi S, Garcia FU, Haber MM, Katsinis C, Tozeren A (2006) Large-scale computations on histology images reveal grade-differentiating parameters for breast cancer. BMC Med Imaging 6(1):14CrossRef Petushi S, Garcia FU, Haber MM, Katsinis C, Tozeren A (2006) Large-scale computations on histology images reveal grade-differentiating parameters for breast cancer. BMC Med Imaging 6(1):14CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Gurcan MN, Boucheron LE, Can A, Madabhushi A, Rajpoot NM, Yener B (2009) Histopathological image analysis: a review. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2:147–171CrossRef Gurcan MN, Boucheron LE, Can A, Madabhushi A, Rajpoot NM, Yener B (2009) Histopathological image analysis: a review. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2:147–171CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandey AC, Rajpoot DS, Saraswat M (2020) Feature selection method based on hybrid data transformation and binary binomial cuckoo search. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 11(2):719–738CrossRef Pandey AC, Rajpoot DS, Saraswat M (2020) Feature selection method based on hybrid data transformation and binary binomial cuckoo search. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 11(2):719–738CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Irshad H, Veillard A, Roux L, Racoceanu D (2013) Methods for nuclei detection, segmentation, and classification in digital histopathology: a review–current status and future potential. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 70:97–114 Irshad H, Veillard A, Roux L, Racoceanu D (2013) Methods for nuclei detection, segmentation, and classification in digital histopathology: a review–current status and future potential. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 70:97–114
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kayser G, Riede U, Werner M, Hufnagl P, Kayser K (2002) Towards an automated morphological classification of histological images of common lung carcinomas. Electr J Pathol Histol 8:22–23 Kayser G, Riede U, Werner M, Hufnagl P, Kayser K (2002) Towards an automated morphological classification of histological images of common lung carcinomas. Electr J Pathol Histol 8:22–23
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Gutiérrez R, Rueda A, Romero E (2013) Learning semantic histopathological representation for basal cell carcinoma classification. In: Medical Imaging 2013: Digital Pathology. Int Society for Optics and Photonics vol, 8676. p. 86760U Gutiérrez R, Rueda A, Romero E (2013) Learning semantic histopathological representation for basal cell carcinoma classification. In: Medical Imaging 2013: Digital Pathology. Int Society for Optics and Photonics vol, 8676. p. 86760U
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Saraswat M, Arya KV (2014) Automated microscopic image analysis for leukocytes identification: a survey. Micron 65:20–33CrossRef Saraswat M, Arya KV (2014) Automated microscopic image analysis for leukocytes identification: a survey. Micron 65:20–33CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Aswathy M, Jagannath M (2017) Detection of breast cancer on digital histopathology images: present status and future possibilities. Inform Med Unlocked 8:74–79CrossRef Aswathy M, Jagannath M (2017) Detection of breast cancer on digital histopathology images: present status and future possibilities. Inform Med Unlocked 8:74–79CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Belsare AD, Mushrif MM (2012) Histopathological image analysis using image processing techniques: an overview. Signal Image Process 3:23 (10) Belsare AD, Mushrif MM (2012) Histopathological image analysis using image processing techniques: an overview. Signal Image Process 3:23 (10)
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Jothi JAA, Rajam VMA (2017) A survey on automated cancer diagnosis from histopathology images. Artif Intell Rev 48(1):31–81CrossRef Jothi JAA, Rajam VMA (2017) A survey on automated cancer diagnosis from histopathology images. Artif Intell Rev 48(1):31–81CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat de Matos J, Ataky S, de Souza Britto A, Soares de Oliveira LE, Lameiras Koerich A (2021) Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis: a review. Electronics 10(10):562CrossRef de Matos J, Ataky S, de Souza Britto A, Soares de Oliveira LE, Lameiras Koerich A (2021) Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis: a review. Electronics 10(10):562CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Komura D, Ishikawa S (2018) Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis. Comput Structu Biotechnol J 16:34–42CrossRef Komura D, Ishikawa S (2018) Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis. Comput Structu Biotechnol J 16:34–42CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Tiep Vu H, Mousavi HS, Monga V, Rao G, Rao UKA (2015) Histopathological image classification using discriminative feature-oriented dictionary learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(3):738–751 Tiep Vu H, Mousavi HS, Monga V, Rao G, Rao UKA (2015) Histopathological image classification using discriminative feature-oriented dictionary learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(3):738–751
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Pal R, Saraswat M, Mittal H (2021) Improved bag-of-features using grey relational analysis for classification of histology images. Complex Intell Syst 7(3):1429–1443 Pal R, Saraswat M, Mittal H (2021) Improved bag-of-features using grey relational analysis for classification of histology images. Complex Intell Syst 7(3):1429–1443
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhal KG, Das A, Ray S et al (2021) Randomly attracted rough firefly algorithm for histogram based fuzzy image clustering. Knowl Based Syst 216:106814 Dhal KG, Das A, Ray S et al (2021) Randomly attracted rough firefly algorithm for histogram based fuzzy image clustering. Knowl Based Syst 216:106814
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Caicedo JC, Cruz A, Angel G, Fabio A (2009) Histopathology image classification using bag of features and kernel functions. In: Conference on artificial intelligence in medicine in Europe, pp 126–135 Caicedo JC, Cruz A, Angel G, Fabio A (2009) Histopathology image classification using bag of features and kernel functions. In: Conference on artificial intelligence in medicine in Europe, pp 126–135
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mittal H, Saraswat M (2019) Classification of histopathological images through bag-of-visual-words and gravitational search algorithm. In: Soft computing for problem solving, pp 231–241 Mittal H, Saraswat M (2019) Classification of histopathological images through bag-of-visual-words and gravitational search algorithm. In: Soft computing for problem solving, pp 231–241
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Dimitrovski I, Kocev D, Loskovska S, Džeroski S (2011) Hierarchical annotation of medical images. Pattern Recognit 44(10–11):2436–2449CrossRef Dimitrovski I, Kocev D, Loskovska S, Džeroski S (2011) Hierarchical annotation of medical images. Pattern Recognit 44(10–11):2436–2449CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Cruz-Roa A, Díaz G, Romero E, González AF (2011) Automatic annotation of histopathological images using a latent topic model based on non-negative matrix factorization. J Pathol Inform 2 Cruz-Roa A, Díaz G, Romero E, González AF (2011) Automatic annotation of histopathological images using a latent topic model based on non-negative matrix factorization. J Pathol Inform 2
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharma M, Kaur P (2020) A comprehensive analysis of nature-inspired meta-heuristic techniques for feature selection problem. Arch Comput Methods Eng 28(3):1103–1127 Sharma M, Kaur P (2020) A comprehensive analysis of nature-inspired meta-heuristic techniques for feature selection problem. Arch Comput Methods Eng 28(3):1103–1127
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Hu Y, Zhang Y, Gong D (2020) Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for feature selection with fuzzy cost. IEEE Trans Cybern 51(2):874–888 Hu Y, Zhang Y, Gong D (2020) Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for feature selection with fuzzy cost. IEEE Trans Cybern 51(2):874–888
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmed AM, Rashid TA, Saeed SAbM (2020) Cat swarm optimization algorithm: a survey and performance evaluation. Comput Intell Neurosci 2020 Ahmed AM, Rashid TA, Saeed SAbM (2020) Cat swarm optimization algorithm: a survey and performance evaluation. Comput Intell Neurosci 2020
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Chakraborty S, Saha AK, Sharma S, Mirjalili S (2021) A novel enhanced whale optimization algorithm for global optimization. Comput Ind Eng 153:107086 CrossRef Chakraborty S, Saha AK, Sharma S, Mirjalili S (2021) A novel enhanced whale optimization algorithm for global optimization. Comput Ind Eng 153:107086 CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Singla A et al (2020) CSBIIST: cuckoo search-based intelligent image segmentation technique. Nat Inspired Comput Swarm Intell 323–338 Singla A et al (2020) CSBIIST: cuckoo search-based intelligent image segmentation technique. Nat Inspired Comput Swarm Intell 323–338
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Geetha K, Anitha V, Elhoseny M, Kathiresan S, Shamsolmoali P, Selim MdM (2021) An evolutionary lion optimization algorithm-based image compression technique for biomedical applications. Expert Syst 38(1):e12508 Geetha K, Anitha V, Elhoseny M, Kathiresan S, Shamsolmoali P, Selim MdM (2021) An evolutionary lion optimization algorithm-based image compression technique for biomedical applications. Expert Syst 38(1):e12508
26.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Boyle NM, Palmer DS, Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO (2008) Simultaneous feature selection and parameter optimisation using an artificial ant colony: case study of melting point prediction. Chem Cent J 2(1):1–15 O’Boyle NM, Palmer DS, Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO (2008) Simultaneous feature selection and parameter optimisation using an artificial ant colony: case study of melting point prediction. Chem Cent J 2(1):1–15
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodrigues D, Pereira LAM, Nakamura RYM, Costa KAP, Yang X-S, Souza A, Papa P (2014) A wrapper approach for feature selection based on bat algorithm and optimum-path forest. Expert Syst Appl 41(5):2250–2258CrossRef Rodrigues D, Pereira LAM, Nakamura RYM, Costa KAP, Yang X-S, Souza A, Papa P (2014) A wrapper approach for feature selection based on bat algorithm and optimum-path forest. Expert Syst Appl 41(5):2250–2258CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Gu S, Cheng R, Jin Y (2018) Feature selection for high-dimensional classification using a competitive swarm optimizer. Soft Comput 22(3):811–822CrossRef Gu S, Cheng R, Jin Y (2018) Feature selection for high-dimensional classification using a competitive swarm optimizer. Soft Comput 22(3):811–822CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Mittal H, Saraswat M (2018) An optimum multi-level image thresholding segmentation using non-local means 2D histogram and exponential Kbest gravitational search algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 71:226–235CrossRef Mittal H, Saraswat M (2018) An optimum multi-level image thresholding segmentation using non-local means 2D histogram and exponential Kbest gravitational search algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 71:226–235CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Tiwari V, Jain SC (2019) Histopathological image classification using efficient bag-of-features and whale optimization algorithm. In: Proceedings of international conference on sustainable computing in science, technology and management (SUSCOM), Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur-India Tiwari V, Jain SC (2019) Histopathological image classification using efficient bag-of-features and whale optimization algorithm. In: Proceedings of international conference on sustainable computing in science, technology and management (SUSCOM), Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur-India
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Kumar MD, Babaie M, Zhu S, Kalra S, Tizhoosh HR (2017) A comparative study of CNN, BoVW and LBP for classification of histopathological images. In: 2017 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), pp 1–7 Kumar MD, Babaie M, Zhu S, Kalra S, Tizhoosh HR (2017) A comparative study of CNN, BoVW and LBP for classification of histopathological images. In: 2017 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), pp 1–7
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Pal R, Saraswat M (2019) Histopathological image classification using enhanced bag-of-feature with spiral biogeography-based optimization. Appl Intell 49(9):3406–3424CrossRef Pal R, Saraswat M (2019) Histopathological image classification using enhanced bag-of-feature with spiral biogeography-based optimization. Appl Intell 49(9):3406–3424CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Rachapudi V, Devi GL (2020) Optimal bag-of-features using random salp swarm algorithm for histopathological image analysis. Int J Intell Inf Database Syst 13(2–4):339–355 Rachapudi V, Devi GL (2020) Optimal bag-of-features using random salp swarm algorithm for histopathological image analysis. Int J Intell Inf Database Syst 13(2–4):339–355
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Díaz G, Romero E (2010) Histopathological image classification using stain component features on a plsa model. In: Iberoamerican congress on pattern recognition, pp 55–62 Díaz G, Romero E (2010) Histopathological image classification using stain component features on a plsa model. In: Iberoamerican congress on pattern recognition, pp 55–62
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang R, Shen J, Wei F, Li X, Sangaiah AK (2017) Medical image classification based on multi-scale non-negative sparse coding. Artif Intell Med 83:44–51CrossRef Zhang R, Shen J, Wei F, Li X, Sangaiah AK (2017) Medical image classification based on multi-scale non-negative sparse coding. Artif Intell Med 83:44–51CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaushal C, Singla A (2021) Analysis of breast cancer for histological dataset based on different feature extraction and classification algorithms. In: International conference on innovative computing and communications, pp 821–833 Kaushal C, Singla A (2021) Analysis of breast cancer for histological dataset based on different feature extraction and classification algorithms. In: International conference on innovative computing and communications, pp 821–833
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Shi Y, Wan Y, Wu K, Chen X (2017) Non-negativity and locality constrained Laplacian sparse coding for image classification. Expert Syst Appl 72:121–129CrossRef Shi Y, Wan Y, Wu K, Chen X (2017) Non-negativity and locality constrained Laplacian sparse coding for image classification. Expert Syst Appl 72:121–129CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu R, Chen Y, Zhu X, Hou K (2016) Image classification using label constrained sparse coding. Multim Tools Appl 75(23):15619–15633CrossRef Liu R, Chen Y, Zhu X, Hou K (2016) Image classification using label constrained sparse coding. Multim Tools Appl 75(23):15619–15633CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang J, Yang J, Yu K, Lv F, Huang T, Gong Y (2010) Locality-constrained linear coding for image classification. In: 2010 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 3360–3367 Wang J, Yang J, Yu K, Lv F, Huang T, Gong Y (2010) Locality-constrained linear coding for image classification. In: 2010 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 3360–3367
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Li P, Liu Y, Liu G, Guo M, Pan Z (2016) A robust local sparse coding method for image classification with Histogram Intersection Kernel. Neurocomputing 184:36–42CrossRef Li P, Liu Y, Liu G, Guo M, Pan Z (2016) A robust local sparse coding method for image classification with Histogram Intersection Kernel. Neurocomputing 184:36–42CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Pal R, Saraswat M (2019) Grey relational analysis based keypoints selection in bag-of-features for histopathological image classification. Recent Pat Comput Sci 12(4):260–268CrossRef Pal R, Saraswat M (2019) Grey relational analysis based keypoints selection in bag-of-features for histopathological image classification. Recent Pat Comput Sci 12(4):260–268CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Sanchez-Morillo D, González J, García-Rojo M, Ortega J (2018) Classification of breast cancer histopathological images using KAZE features. In: International conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, pp 276–286 Sanchez-Morillo D, González J, García-Rojo M, Ortega J (2018) Classification of breast cancer histopathological images using KAZE features. In: International conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, pp 276–286
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Hashimoto E, Ishikawa M, Shinoda K, Hasegawa M, others (2017) Tissue classification of liver pathological tissue specimens image using spectral features. Med Imaging 2017 Dig Pathol 10140:101400Z Hashimoto E, Ishikawa M, Shinoda K, Hasegawa M, others (2017) Tissue classification of liver pathological tissue specimens image using spectral features. Med Imaging 2017 Dig Pathol 10140:101400Z
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Beagum S, Ashour AS, Dey N (2017) Bag-of-features in microscopic images classification. Med Imaging Concepts Methodol Tools Appl 435-456 Beagum S, Ashour AS, Dey N (2017) Bag-of-features in microscopic images classification. Med Imaging Concepts Methodol Tools Appl 435-456
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Mhala NC, Bhandari SH (2016) Improved approach towards classification of histopathology images using bag-of-features. In: 2016 international conference on signal and information processing (IConSIP), pp 1–5 Mhala NC, Bhandari SH (2016) Improved approach towards classification of histopathology images using bag-of-features. In: 2016 international conference on signal and information processing (IConSIP), pp 1–5
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Pal R, Saraswat M (2020) A new weighted two-dimensional vector quantisation encoding method in bag-of-features for histopathological image classification. Int J Intell Inf Database Syst 13(2–4):150–171 Pal R, Saraswat M (2020) A new weighted two-dimensional vector quantisation encoding method in bag-of-features for histopathological image classification. Int J Intell Inf Database Syst 13(2–4):150–171
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Cao CH, Cao HL (2016) The research on medical image classification algorithm based on PLSA-BOW model. Technol Health Care 24(s2):S665–S674CrossRef Cao CH, Cao HL (2016) The research on medical image classification algorithm based on PLSA-BOW model. Technol Health Care 24(s2):S665–S674CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Vijh S, Gaurav P, Pandey HM (2020) Hybrid bio-inspired algorithm and convolutional neural network for automatic lung tumor detection. Neural Comput Appl 1–14 Vijh S, Gaurav P, Pandey HM (2020) Hybrid bio-inspired algorithm and convolutional neural network for automatic lung tumor detection. Neural Comput Appl 1–14
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Zheng Y, Jiang Z, Xie F, Zhang H, Ma Y, Shi H, Zhao Y (2017) Feature extraction from histopathological images based on nucleus-guided convolutional neural network for breast lesion classification. Pattern Recognit 71:14–25CrossRef Zheng Y, Jiang Z, Xie F, Zhang H, Ma Y, Shi H, Zhao Y (2017) Feature extraction from histopathological images based on nucleus-guided convolutional neural network for breast lesion classification. Pattern Recognit 71:14–25CrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Holzinger A, Malle B, Kieseberg P, Roth PM, Müller H, Reihs R, Zatloukal K (2017) Machine learning and knowledge extraction in digital pathology needs an integrative approach. In: In towards integrative machine learning and knowledge extraction, pp 13–50 Holzinger A, Malle B, Kieseberg P, Roth PM, Müller H, Reihs R, Zatloukal K (2017) Machine learning and knowledge extraction in digital pathology needs an integrative approach. In: In towards integrative machine learning and knowledge extraction, pp 13–50
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Schneeberger D, Stöger K, Holzinger A (2020) The European Legal Framework for Medical AI. In: Holzinger A, Kieseberg P, Tjoa A, Weippl E (eds) Machine learning and knowledge extraction. vol 12279 Schneeberger D, Stöger K, Holzinger A (2020) The European Legal Framework for Medical AI. In: Holzinger A, Kieseberg P, Tjoa A, Weippl E (eds) Machine learning and knowledge extraction. vol 12279
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Dalal N, Triggs B (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: 2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’05), vol 1, no 1–2, pp 886–893 Dalal N, Triggs B (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: 2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’05), vol 1, no 1–2, pp 886–893
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Rafael H, Martins AS, Neves LA, do Nascimento MZ (2020) Analysis of features for breast cancer recognition in different magnifications of histopathological images. In: 2020 international conference on systems, signals and image processing (IWSSIP), pp 39–44 Rafael H, Martins AS, Neves LA, do Nascimento MZ (2020) Analysis of features for breast cancer recognition in different magnifications of histopathological images. In: 2020 international conference on systems, signals and image processing (IWSSIP), pp 39–44
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Vargas-López JD, Toro-García N, other (2020) Histopathology color image processing in prostate carcinoma. In: 15th international symposium on medical information processing and analysis, vol 11330, p 1133006 Vargas-López JD, Toro-García N, other (2020) Histopathology color image processing in prostate carcinoma. In: 15th international symposium on medical information processing and analysis, vol 11330, p 1133006
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Preetha K, Jayanthi SK (2018) GLCM and GLRLM based feature extraction technique in mammogram images. Int J Eng Technol 7:266–270CrossRef Preetha K, Jayanthi SK (2018) GLCM and GLRLM based feature extraction technique in mammogram images. Int J Eng Technol 7:266–270CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmadi N, Akbarizadeh G (2020) Iris tissue recognition based on GLDM feature extraction and hybrid MLPNN-ICA classifier. Neural Comput Appl 32(7):2276–2281CrossRef Ahmadi N, Akbarizadeh G (2020) Iris tissue recognition based on GLDM feature extraction and hybrid MLPNN-ICA classifier. Neural Comput Appl 32(7):2276–2281CrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Bozorg-Haddad O (2018) Advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms (vol. 720). Singapore: Springer Bozorg-Haddad O (2018) Advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms (vol. 720). Singapore: Springer
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahrami M, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2018) Cat swarm optimization (CSO) algorithm. In: Advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms, pp 9–18 Bahrami M, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2018) Cat swarm optimization (CSO) algorithm. In: Advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms, pp 9–18
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Chu SC, Tsai PW (2007) Computational intelligence based on the behavior of cats. In: International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 3(1):163–173 Chu SC, Tsai PW (2007) Computational intelligence based on the behavior of cats. In: International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 3(1):163–173
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Srinivas U, Mousavi HS, Monga V, Hattel A, Jayarao B, Bhushan (2014) Simultaneous sparsity model for histopathological image representation and classification. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(15):1163–1179 Srinivas U, Mousavi HS, Monga V, Hattel A, Jayarao B, Bhushan (2014) Simultaneous sparsity model for histopathological image representation and classification. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(15):1163–1179
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Spanhol F, Oliveira LS, Petitjean C, Heutte L (2015) A dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63(7):1455–1462 Spanhol F, Oliveira LS, Petitjean C, Heutte L (2015) A dataset for breast cancer histopathological image classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63(7):1455–1462
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Marini F, Walczak B (2015) Particle swarm optimization (PSO). A tutorial. Chemomet Intell Lab Syst 149:153–165CrossRef Marini F, Walczak B (2015) Particle swarm optimization (PSO). A tutorial. Chemomet Intell Lab Syst 149:153–165CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
New bag-of-feature for histopathology image classification using reinforced cat swarm algorithm and weighted Gaussian mixture modelling
verfasst von
Surbhi Vijh
Sumit Kumar
Mukesh Saraswat
Publikationsdatum
03.05.2022
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Complex & Intelligent Systems / Ausgabe 6/2022
Print ISSN: 2199-4536
Elektronische ISSN: 2198-6053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-022-00726-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2022

Complex & Intelligent Systems 6/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner