An Innovative Deep Learning Framework Integrating Transfer- Learning And Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier For The Classification Of Breast Ultrasound Images

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 06 | June 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2900
An Innovative Deep Learning Framework Integrating Transfer-
Learning And Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier For The
Classification Of Breast Ultrasound Images
Rethy P V 1, Priya S 2, Janu R Panicker 3, and Lekshmi R Nair 4
1 Department of Computer Engineering, Government Polytechnic College, Cherthala, India
2,3,4 Department of Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Cherthala, India
------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Breast cancer is the most happening death from
cancer around the globe. Early identification improves the
chances of complete recovery and increases life span, but it is
a long-drawn process that frequently leads to pathologists
disagreeing. Computer-assisted diagnosis methods could
increase diagnostic precision. In this work, we present an
innovative and hybrid form of deep Convolutional Neural
Network (CNN) based learning integrated with traditional
machine learning for classifying Breast Ultrasound (BUS)
images. Feature extraction by transfer learning and
classification via the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)
classifier helped us with the task of classifying BUS images in
our work. The Non-Local Means (NLM) filter is used to
preprocess BUS images. This experiment makes use of the
Kaggle Breast Ultrasound Images Dataset. We report 96.7%
accuracy, 96% AUC for benign vs rest, 98% AUC for
malignant vs rest, 98% AUC for normal vs rest, and
precision/recall/F-score is, 100%/96%/96% for benign class,
95%/97%/96% for the malignant class and 95%/98%/97%
for the normal class. This method, in our opinion, surpasses
other commonly used automatic BUS image classification
algorithms.
Keywords: Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Breast
Ultrasound (BUS) images, Extreme Gradient Boosting
(XGBoost), Non-Local Means (NLM) filter, AUC,
precision/recall/F-score.
1. INTRODUCTION
Cancer disorders are the second biggest mortality cause,
the world over, accounting for 9.6 million deaths in 2018.
Among such disorders breast cancer is reported to be the
most dangerous and extremely prevalent kind of cancer,
causing almost 6 lakh deaths per annum. The death rate is
reduced when cancer is detected and treated early. The
ducts, which are tubes that supply milk to the nipple, and
the lobules, which are milk-producing glands, are perhaps
the more frequent locations where a cancer region is
detected in the breast. Among the various imaging
modalities available, ultrasonography is suggested for
breast cancer prognosis at an early stage.
For the past forty years, ultrasound is well known for
its ability to identify cancerous regions in the breast.
Ultrasonography, in addition to mammography, has been
shown to increase sensitivity for detecting breast cancer in
recent years, especially in women with denser breast
tissues, predominantly in young women. Breast
ultrasonography is progressively increasing prominence in
the physical examination of women considered to have a
higher susceptibility to breast cancer, thanks to the
introduction of novel technologies such as shear wave
elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Although
ultrasound takes more time from the radiologist and is
operator-dependent, it does not use ionizing radiation,
gives greater soft-tissue contrast, and can guide a biopsy
instrument in real-time, unlike mammography. Though
some studies estimate a prediction positive rate of less than
5%, adding ultrasonography to a screening exam may still
produce a significant amount of incorrect positive
predictions.
In order to increase the radiologist's sensitivity when
performing mammography, computer-aided diagnosis
(CAD) software has shown promising outcomes. A lack of
medically approved technology for widespread use in
breast ultrasonography creating positive findings in recent
studies made the problem worse. In recent years, artificial
neural networks have shown promising outcomes for a
variety of applications [1-4]. With the competence of a
human in detection and classification steps, a collection of
algorithms known as deep learning has just quickly evolved
in quality management in the field of the manufacturing
industry [5]. Deep learning techniques handling images
belonging to the field of biomedical images fail mainly due
to the need for enormous quantities of superior quality
train and test dataset, which includes annotated images
marked as masks or Ground Truth (GT). ROI texture
information gets muddled due to speckle noise, making it

unable to detect malignancy concerns. As a result, creating
or employing a good filter can help reduce speckle noise,
which helps for quick extraction of features and
segmentation later. Again, segmentation can be problematic
due to the machine-created artifact. Finally, it may be
challenging to find powerful features for predicting cancer
risk.
However, feature extraction still heavily depends on
the knowledge of radiologists. The difficulty of manually
creating characteristics from images drove researchers to
develop more recent techniques capable of automatically
inferring distinguishable features from images. Deep
learning is a technique that helps the extraction of non-
linear features. Deep learning models have been
demonstrated to be very effective in the classification of
ultrasound images when pattern identification by hand is
challenging [6,7].
Several researchers have given several ways for
automated classifications of breast ultrasound images for
cancer diagnosis throughout the last few decades. In this
regard, some researchers have developed clustering-based
algorithms that use the circular Hough Transform as well as
a variety of statistical variables for image segmentation and
image classification [8-10]. Histopathological image
analysis methods are quickly expanding throughout the
field of biomedical image analysis, but a significant need
still exists for an automated model capable of producing
effective findings with better accuracy [11–13].
Deep learning is a technique that was developed to
effectively extract pertinent data from unprocessed images
and use it for classification tasks for overcoming all
limitations found in existing techniques of the traditional
machine learning approach. Deep learning does not require
manual feature tuning; instead, it uses a general-purpose
learning approach to learn from data sets. Recently,
Convolution Neural Network (CNN) achieved a lot of
success in the medical field, such as meiosis cell detection
from microscopy images [14,15], detecting the presence of
tumours [16], segmenting neural membrane [17], skin
disease, and classification [18], immune cell detection and
classification [19], and mass quantification in
mammograms [20].
The CNN application performs well with large data sets,
but it struggles with small data sets. Individual CNN
architectures can improve their performance after
combining the intellect using the concept of transfer
learning [21,22], resulting in higher classification accuracy
and decreased computation costs. Using pre-trained deep
CNN, features are extracted from general images and then
applied directly to domain-specific and smaller data sets
[23]. Training is performed in 2 epochs for single and
overlapping regions using the novel transfer learning
method known as context-based learning, and it is
exceptionally good at identifying and classifying breast
cancer [24]. Transfer learning has been used in the
proposed framework to overcome shortcomings in existing
malignant tumor detection and classification systems. The
following is a summary of this paper's primary
contribution:
1. Reduce speckle noise with the help of the Non-
Local Means (NLM) filter.
2. Extract features with the help of transfer learning
using VGG16.
3. Classification of BUS images using XGBoost
classifier.
The paper comprises seven sections. The most recent
literature review of the classification of BUS images is
mentioned in Section 2. Section 3 provides a short
description of the data used in this work. The suggested
paradigm and technique are discussed in Section 4, which
contains subsections on preprocessing and augmentation of
data, the architecture of VGG16, and the technique of
transfer learning. The details of how the technique is
actually implemented are discussed in Section 5. Section 6
gives a clear picture of the result acquired after
implementing the proposed approach, as well as its
performance evaluation. Lastly, in Section 7, we bring the
study to a close and offer recommendations for additional
research.
2. Literature Review
Using support vector machines (SVM) and
discriminant analysis, R. Rodrigues et al. [25] established a
fully automatic method for the segmentation and
classification of Breast Ultrasound images. To classify the
pixel values of BUS images acquired after performing a
bunch of image processing methods of multiple resolutions
for different values, applying a high pass filter, non-linear
diffusion operation, applying a low pass filter, and 2 mean
curvature forms from Gaussian filtering are used, but the
object's edge is strengthened by the use of a filling
technique [25].
For the diagnosis and classification of breast
cancer, the technique called Linear Discriminant Analysis

(LDA) [26] and Logistic Regression (LOGREG) [27] are two
often used linear classifiers. LDA's main purpose is to
obtain the optimum linear combination of features for
distinguishing two or more data classes. [28] utilized LDA
to examine data of 400 samples which have 4 features
generated automatically. The average area under the ROC
curve for 11 independent experiments was 0.87. In a
database of 58 individuals, LOGREG was used to assess the
risk of cancer [29].
Back-Propagation Neural Networks (BPN) [30],
Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) [31], and Hierarchical
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) [32] are three types of
neural networks extensively used in the prognosis and
classification of breast cancer.
Once the parameters have been established during
the learning phase, a decision tree could be modeled as a
classification tool. The method is much easier and quicker
to implement than artificial neural networks [33]. It does,
however, rely largely on the creation of non-terminal node
classification rules and threshold values. The decision tree
construction method C4.5 [34] is well-known. This
algorithm is commonly used in artificial intelligence and is
included in the free WEKA classifier package (where it is
referred to as J48). C5.0 is an upgraded version of C4.5 with
several new features. The decision tree in [35] was created
using algorithm C5.0 for 153 data samples of training and
testing data of 90 samples. The covariant coefficient of ROI
was used as a feature in the decision tree, with an accuracy
of 96 percent (86/90), a sensitivity of 93.33 percent
(28/30), and a specificity of 96.67 percent (58/60) on the
testing data set, respectively.
Texture features have been utilized explicitly in the
form of feature vectors to estimate the similarity score in
[36], and the downside is the need for a database that
should be from the same platform. In [37], a basic set of
images were created from the entire database using
Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and every image was
described by a linear combination of images from the basic
set that was given weights. The newly obtained vector
utilized for determining the similarity score was the weight
vector. With the help of images from a variety of sources,
this strategy worked wonderfully.
3. Dataset
The experiment is based on the Kaggle Breast
Ultrasound Images Dataset [38]. Breast ultrasound scans of
women aged 25 to 75 are collected as part of the baseline
data. This information was gathered in 2018. There are 600
female patients in all. The total number of images is 780
with an average resolution of 500x500. The majority of BUS
images are in grayscale. At Baheya Hospital, they were
acquired and kept in a DICOM format. Over a year, the
images were acquired and annotated. There are three
categories in the BUS dataset: benign, malignant, and
normal as demonstrated in table 1.
Table 1: The dataset used in the study
To that time, 1100 photos had been obtained, but 780 were
left after preprocessing. The original images contain
insignificant data that cannot be classified in bulk. The
result varies with such insignificant information. The
scanning operation was carried out using the LOGIQ E9
ultrasound system and the LOGIQ E9 Agile ultrasound
system [38]. These technologies are commonly found in
high-quality image acquisition for radiology, cardiology,
and cardiovascular care applications. The images are
produced with a resolution of 1280x1024 pixels. 1e5 MHz
transducers are used in the ML6-15-D Matrix linear probe
[38]. All images are in PNG format.
4. Proposed Framework
This section explains the proposed approach for
extracting features from BUS images and classifying them
as normal, benign, or malignant, which is based on CNN
architecture and the XGBoost classifier. The Non-Local
Means Filter (NLM), created by Buades [39], is used to
minimize the speckle noise in BUS images. Many of the low-
level characteristics in the proposed model are extracted by
VGG16 trained on the ImageNet. The features are then sent
to the XGBoost classifier for classification, as shown in Fig
1.

Fig 1: Proposed method
The following subsections give the proposed method in
great detail.
4.1. Pre-processing of BUS images and data
augmentation
This stage is mandatory to decrease speckle noise
in BUS images. Speckle reduction is a major preprocessing
step for obtaining, analyzing, and distinguishing
information from medical images taken using
ultrasonography. In the proposed method, the NLM filter
presented in [39] is used to decrease speckle noise.
For CNN to enhance its accuracy, it needs a lot of
data. Furthermore, CNN's performance diminishes with a
small quantity of data due to the over-fitting problem. This
suggests that the network excels on the training dataset but
fails miserably for the test dataset. To enlarge the data set
and eliminate over-fitting concerns, the proposed method
uses a data augmentation technique [40,41]. In this, the
quantity of data is increased by executing spatial-geometric
modifications to the dataset using simple and efficient
image transformation techniques. In this way, RGB value
adjustment, intensity transforms (translation, scale
operation, rotating of images), flip operation, and adding
noise disturbance all contribute to the image data set [41].
4.2. Extraction of relevant features using pre-trained
VGG16
A Visual Geometry Group16 (VGG16) architecture
is used initially for extracting features in the proposed
system to classify breast cancer in BUS images. The features
could contain several of them retrieved from a single
feature descriptor; which could represent shape
descriptors like circularity, roundness, compactness, and so
on.
Fig 2: VGG 16 architecture (adopted from [42])
Based on transfer learning theory, this architecture
is first pre-trained for a number of generic image
descriptors for images in ImageNet, then appropriate
feature extraction from BUS images [43] is done.
Fig 3: Layers in VGG 16
VGG16's layers are shown in Figure 3. The number
16 in VGG16 stands for 16 weighted layers. VGG16
comprises thirteen convolutional layers, five Max Pooling
layers, and three Dense layers, for a total of twenty-one
layers, but only sixteen weight layers, which are learnable
or trainable parameters layers. The input tensor size for
VGG16 is 224, 244 with 3 RGB channels. The most
mentionable feature of VGG16 it does not have a large
number of hyper parameters. The convolution filter size is
3x3, padding is the same, the stride is 1, the max pool size
is, 2x2, and, stride 2.
The convolution and maximum pool are arranged
in a regular pattern in the entire architecture. The first
convolution layer has a filter size of 64, the second layer has
a filter size of 128, the third layer has a filter size of 256,

and the fourth and fifth layers have a size of 512. Then
comes the three Fully Connected (FC) layers.
VGG16 trained on images from the ImageNet is
used for extracting features from our BUS images without
including the top layers, i.e., FC layers.
4.3. Transfer learning
In order to train a CNN a big amount of data is
needed, yet compiling a large data collection of relevant
problems can be difficult in some cases. In most real-world
applications, the scenario is different, and gathering
matching training and testing data is a tough task. The
phrase "transfer learning" was coined as a result. It is a very
popular method used in the traditional Machine Learning
(ML) approach in which a prior knowledge needed to
answer one problem is learned and reused on subsequent
problems. Before being applied to the target task, which
should be learned on the target dataset, the base model has
been built on the relevant dataset for that task [44].
The two key steps in the transfer learning process
are the choice of the network model, the scale of the
challenge, and the similarity score. To decide on which
model to utilize, the problem linked to the target is
identified and used. A high risk of overfitting exists for
datasets related to the medical field, motor vehicle
department, fingerprint analysis, etc. where the target and
source are almost the same [45]. Similarly, if the dataset is
larger and the source and target are similar, then it is
unlikely, and the pre-trained model only has to be fine-
tuned.
The suggested system makes use of VGG16 to share
its transfer learning and fine-tuning properties. VGG16 was
trained for images from ImageNet with the help of transfer
learning. As a result, the architecture may learn generic
features from a variety of data sets without the need for
further training. The XGBoost classifier employs decision
tree-based classification to identify the normal, malignant,
and benign BUS images using the number of features
collected separately from the CNN architecture.
4.4. XGBoost classifier
The Extreme Gradient Boosting classifier, called
XGBoost [46] classifier is used to classify the BUS images as
normal, benign, or malignant. It is a technique that is
suitable for classification as well as regression modeling,
extensively used in traditional machine learning problems.
It's a group of decision trees that have been boosted by
gradients. Gradient boosting is a technique for developing
new models that forecast something called a residual or
error of the earlier model, which is later combined for
reaching a final prediction. In this type of boosting
operation, a gradient descent technique is employed to
reduce errors [47].
5. Implementation Details
To expedite the process, the method was written in
Python and tested on the Google Colab environment. The
deep learning models were created using the PyTorch
package. VGG16 is imported using the Keras application
library. We utilized the XGBoost library to create the
XGBoost classifier. To optimize the loss, we tried different
parameter values to improve the accuracy of the model.
Table 2 shows the suggested model's hyperparameter
configuration in detail.
Model Hyperparameter Value
XGBClassifier
n_estimators 100
Max_depth 3
Min_child_weight 1.0
learning_rate 0.1
colsample_bylevel 1.0
colsample_bytree 1.0
subsample 1.0
reg_alpha 0
reg_lambda 1.0
Table 2: Hyperparameter’s values of XGBClassifier
6. Experimental results and discussion
The experimental results for our proposed model
are presented in this section. The accuracy score is the
major evaluation metric we use. Precision, recall, F1 score,
and AUC score are also reported. To generate the
aforementioned metrics, the predicted class is compared
with the actual class.
Using the VGG16 model trained in the ImageNet,
we extracted image characteristics during stage 1 of
training. Then the XGBoostClassifier was used for training
on these features. On the test set, the XGBoostClassifier
after VGG16 yielded remarkable results, with a 96.67%
accuracy. The confusion matrix for the suggested hybrid
model is shown in Figure 4. We have noticed that only a few

data sets have been misclassified. We find that the XGBoost
classification head over VGG16 has a lower false-positive
rate; this is important in the medical field because a patient
can be treated as one with the disease by conducting more
checkups to rule out the disease than to rule out a sick one
after the incorrect prediction of fitness [45].
Two essential measures for validating a model
used to diagnose in the medical field are sensitivity
measure and specificity measure. The confusion matrix can
be used to interpret these metrics (Figure 4).
Fig 4: Confusion Matrix 0: benign, 1: malignant,
2: normal
Various performance metrics for the classification
result analysis are depicted in Table 3.
Table 3: Performance metrics based on Confusion Matrix
TPR (True Positive Rate) and FPR (False Positive
Rate) are AUC/ROC (Area Under the Curve/Receiver
Operating Characteristics) measurements that assist
estimate how much information the model learns and how
effectively it can distinguish between classes. TPR = 1 and
FPR = 0 in the perfect condition. The ROC curve obtained
for the proposed model for the test data sample is shown in
Figure 5.
Fig 5: The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve
for the proposed model 0: benign, 1: malignant, 2: normal
An AUC value close to one suggests that the model
is highly separable. The AUC score for each of the
classification cases is shown in table 4.
Table 4: AUC score
This demonstrates suggested model has high
separability and properly classifies the vast majority of the
cases in the test data set with fewer errors. Furthermore,
FPR is near zero and the TPR is near one, indicating that the
model is working well.
7. Conclusion & Future work
We introduce a VGG16 (CNN backbone) and
XGBoost-based hybrid classification model in this paper.
We extract features from BUS images using the fine-tuned
VGG16 model. These learned characteristics are fed into an
XGBoost model, which serves as the decision-maker for
classification. The suggested hybrid model is able to
diagnose breast cancer with 96.7% accuracy and reliability.
If we have a huge amount of training data, the deep
learning approach is ideal. With minimal data, feature
engineering and traditional machine learning will yield
improved accuracy ( eg, SVM or Random Forest).
Simultaneously, you can construct your features by utilizing
Gabor to add a bunch of filters or filter banks. The strategy

we use as a feature extractor is to use a pre-trained CNN, in
this case, VGG16 trained on ImageNet. With only a few
training images, this method produces better results.
We are unable to further examine the model's
performance on comparable datasets because there aren't
any publicly accessible BUS image datasets. In order to
advance research on this topic, we will try to eventually
obtain a sizable dataset else create a synthetic dataset with
the help of Generative Adversarial Networks. We can figure
out which algorithms work best for our data by
experimenting with alternative algorithms and then utilize
that information to increase the accuracy of our model.
Another technique to improve accuracy is to explore
different neural network architectures and identify the one
that best suits our data.
Making the model more interpretable should be a
primary focus of future studies. Despite our efforts to
comprehend the model using feature maps, the problem
remains essentially unsolved. In order for the model to
support the classification choice, we would like to make it
more explicable in the future. This improved
interpretability level of the prognostics model will impart
further credibility to the medical practitioners and patients.
References
1. Han, S., Kang, H.K., Jeong, J.Y., Park, M.H., Kim, W.,
Bang, W.C. and Seong, Y.K., 2017. A deep learning
framework for supporting the classification of
breast lesions in ultrasound images. Physics in
Medicine & Biology, 62(19), p.7714.
2. Zhang, Q., Xiao, Y., Dai, W., Suo, J., Wang, C., Shi, J.
and Zheng, H., 2016. Deep learning based
classification of breast tumors with shear-wave
elastography. Ultrasonics, 72, pp.150-157.
3. Shi, J., Zhou, S., Liu, X., Zhang, Q., Lu, M. and Wang,
T., 2016. Stacked deep polynomial network based
representation learning for tumor classification
with small ultrasound image dataset.
Neurocomputing, 194, pp.87-94.
4. Cheng, J.Z., Ni, D., Chou, Y.H., Qin, J., Tiu, C.M., Chang,
Y.C., Huang, C.S., Shen, D. and Chen, C.M., 2016.
Computer-aided diagnosis with deep learning
architecture: applications to breast lesions in US
images and pulmonary nodules in CT scans.
Scientific reports, 6(1), pp.1-13.
5. Yang, J., Li, S., Wang, Z., Dong, H., Wang, J. and Tang,
S., 2020. Using deep learning to detect defects in
manufacturing: a comprehensive survey and
current challenges. Materials, 13(24), p.5755.
6. Brattain, L.J., Telfer, B.A., Dhyani, M., Grajo, J.R. and
Samir, A.E., 2018. Machine learning for medical
ultrasound: status, methods, and future
opportunities. Abdominal radiology, 43(4), pp.786-
799.
7. Singh, V.K., Abdel-Nasser, M., Akram, F., Rashwan,
H.A., Sarker, M.M.K., Pandey, N., Romani, S. and
Puig, D., 2020. Breast tumor segmentation in
ultrasound images using contextual-information-
aware deep adversarial learning framework.
Expert Systems with Applications, 162, p.113870.
8. Kowal, M., Filipczuk, P., Obuchowicz, A., Korbicz, J.
and Monczak, R., 2013. Computer-aided diagnosis
of breast cancer based on fine needle biopsy
microscopic images. Computers in biology and
medicine, 43(10), pp.1563-1572.
9. Filipczuk, P., Fevens, T., Krzyżak, A. and Monczak,
R., 2013. Computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis
based on the analysis of cytological images of fine
needle biopsies. IEEE transactions on medical
imaging, 32(12), pp.2169-2178.
10. George, Y.M., Zayed, H.H., Roushdy, M.I. and
Elbagoury, B.M., 2013. Remote computer-aided
breast cancer detection and diagnosis system
based on cytological images. IEEE Systems Journal,
8(3), pp.949-964.
11. Irshad, H., Veillard, A., Roux, L. and Racoceanu, D.,
2013. Methods for nuclei detection, segmentation,
and classification in digital histopathology: a
review—current status and future potential. IEEE
reviews in biomedical engineering, 7, pp.97-114.
12. Veta, M., Pluim, J.P., Van Diest, P.J. and Viergever,
M.A., 2014. Breast cancer histopathology image
analysis: A review. IEEE transactions on biomedical
engineering, 61(5), pp.1400-1411.
13. McCann, M.T., Ozolek, J.A., Castro, C.A., Parvin, B.
and Kovacevic, J., 2014. Automated histology
analysis: Opportunities for signal processing. IEEE
Signal Processing Magazine, 32(1), pp.78-87.

14. Malon, C.D. and Cosatto, E., 2013. Classification of
mitotic figures with convolutional neural networks
and seeded blob features. Journal of pathology
informatics, 4(1), p.9.
15. Cruz-Roa, A., Basavanhally, A., González, F.,
Gilmore, H., Feldman, M., Ganesan, S., Shih, N.,
Tomaszewski, J. and Madabhushi, A., 2014, March.
Automatic detection of invasive ductal carcinoma
in whole slide images with convolutional neural
networks. In Medical Imaging 2014: Digital
Pathology (Vol. 9041, p. 904103). SPIE.
16. Cruz-Roa, A.A., Arevalo Ovalle, J.E., Madabhushi, A.
and González Osorio, F.A., 2013, September. A deep
learning architecture for image representation,
visual interpretability and automated basal-cell
carcinoma cancer detection. In International
conference on medical image computing and
computer-assisted intervention (pp. 403-410).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
17. Ciresan, D., Giusti, A., Gambardella, L. and
Schmidhuber, J., 2012. Deep neural networks
segment neuronal membranes in electron
microscopy images. Advances in neural
information processing systems, 25.
18. Esteva, A., Kuprel, B. and Thrun, S., 2015. Deep
networks for early stage skin disease and skin
cancer classification. Project Report.
19. Chen, T. and Chefd’Hotel, C., 2014, September. Deep
learning based automatic immune cell detection for
immunohistochemistry images. In International
workshop on machine learning in medical imaging
(pp. 17-24). Springer, Cham.
20. Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G. and Bradley, A.P., 2015,
October. Deep learning and structured prediction
for the segmentation of mass in mammograms. In
International Conference on Medical image
computing and computer-assisted intervention
(pp. 605-612). Springer, Cham.
21. Sharif Razavian, A., Azizpour, H., Sullivan, J. and
Carlsson, S., 2014. CNN features off-the-shelf: an
astounding baseline for recognition. In Proceedings
of the IEEE conference on computer vision and
pattern recognition workshops (pp. 806-813).
22. Donahue, J., Jia, Y., Vinyals, O., Hoffman, J., Zhang, N.,
Tzeng, E. and Darrell, T., 2014, January. Decaf: A
deep convolutional activation feature for generic
visual recognition. In International conference on
machine learning (pp. 647-655). PMLR.
23. Nguyen, L.D., Lin, D., Lin, Z. and Cao, J., 2018, May.
Deep CNNs for microscopic image classification by
exploiting transfer learning and feature
concatenation. In 2018 IEEE international
symposium on circuits and systems (ISCAS) (pp. 1-
5). IEEE.
24. Awan, R., Koohbanani, N.A., Shaban, M., Lisowska,
A. and Rajpoot, N., 2018, June. Context-aware
learning using transferable features for
classification of breast cancer histology images. In
International conference image analysis and
recognition (pp. 788-795). springer, Cham.
25. Rodrigues, R., Pinheiro, A., Braz, R., Pereira, M. and
Moutinho, J., 2012, November. Towards breast
ultrasound image segmentation using multi-
resolution pixel descriptors. In Proceedings of the
21st International Conference on Pattern
Recognition (ICPR2012) (pp. 2833-2836). IEEE.
26. Lachenbruch, P.A., 1975. Discriminant Analysis,
New York: Hafner. Lachenbruch Discriminant
Analysis 1975.
27. Kleinbaum, D.G. and Klein, M., 2010. Introduction
to logistic regression. In Logistic regression (pp. 1-
39). Springer, New York, NY.
28. Horsch, K., Giger, M.L., Venta, L.A. and Vyborny, C.J.,
2002. Computerized diagnosis of breast lesions on
ultrasound. Medical physics, 29(2), pp.157-164.
29. Sehgal, C.M., Cary, T.W., Kangas, S.A., Weinstein,
S.P., Schultz, S.M., Arger, P.H. and Conant, E.F.,
2004. Computer‐based margin analysis of breast
sonography for differentiating malignant and
benign masses. Journal of ultrasound in medicine,
23(9), pp.1201-1209.
30. Chen, D.R., Chang, R.F. and Huang, Y.L., 1999.
Computer-aided diagnosis applied to US of solid
breast nodules by using neural networks.
Radiology, 213(2), pp.407-412.

31. Chen, D.R., Chang, R.F. and Huang, Y.L., 2000. Breast
cancer diagnosis using self-organizing map for
sonography. Ultrasound in medicine &
biology, 26(3), pp.405-411.
32. Chen, D.R., Chang, R.F., Huang, Y.L., Chou, Y.H., Tiu,
C.M. and Tsai, P.P., 2000, August. Texture analysis
of breast tumors on sonograms. In Seminars in
Ultrasound, CT and MRI (Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 308-
316). WB Saunders.
33. Cheng, H.D., Shi, X.J., Min, R., Hu, L.M., Cai, X.P. and
Du, H.N., 2006. Approaches for automated
detection and classification of masses in
mammograms. Pattern recognition, 39(4), pp.646-
668.
34. Quinlan, J.R., 2014. C4. 5: programs for machine
learning. Elsevier.
35. Kuo, W.J., Chang, R.F., Chen, D.R. and Lee, C.C., 2001.
Data mining with decision trees for diagnosis of
breast tumor in medical ultrasonic images. Breast
cancer research and treatment, 66(1), pp.51-57.
36. Kuo, W.J., Chang, R.F., Lee, C.C., Moon, W.K. and
Chen, D.R., 2002. Retrieval technique for the
diagnosis of solid breast tumors on
sonogram. Ultrasound in medicine &
biology, 28(7), pp.903-909.
37. Huang, Y.L., Chen, D.R. and Liu, Y.K., 2004, October.
Breast cancer diagnosis using image retrieval for
different ultrasonic systems. In 2004 International
Conference on Image Processing, 2004.
ICIP'04. (Vol. 5, pp. 2957-2960). IEEE.
38. Al-Dhabyani, W., Gomaa, M., Khaled, H. and Fahmy,
A., 2020. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data
in brief, 28, p.104863.
39. Buades, A., Coll, B. and Morel, J.M., 2005. A review
of image denoising algorithms, with a new
one. Multiscale modeling & simulation, 4(2),
pp.490-530.
40. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. and Hinton, G.E., 2012.
Imagenet classification with deep convolutional
neural networks. Advances in neural information
processing systems, 25.
41. Ciregan, D., Meier, U. and Schmidhuber, J., 2012,
June. Multi-column deep neural networks for image
classification. In 2012 IEEE conference on
computer vision and pattern recognition (pp.
3642-3649). IEEE.
42. Kamilaris, A. and Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X., 2018. A
review of the use of convolutional neural networks
in agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural
Science, 156(3), pp.312-322.
43. Yosinski, J., Clune, J., Bengio, Y. and Lipson, H.,
2014. How transferable are features in deep neural
networks?. Advances in neural information
processing systems, 27.
44. Yang, L., Hanneke, S. and Carbonell, J., 2013. A
theory of transfer learning with applications to
active learning. Machine learning, 90(2), pp.161-
189.
45. Khan, S., Islam, N., Jan, Z., Din, I.U. and Rodrigues,
J.J.C., 2019. A novel deep learning based framework
for the detection and classification of breast cancer
using transfer learning. Pattern Recognition
Letters, 125, pp.1-6.
46. Chen, T. and Guestrin, C., 2016, August. Xgboost: A
scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of
the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on
knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 785-
794).
47. Ramaneswaran, S., Srinivasan, K., Vincent, P.M. and
Chang, C.Y., 2021. Hybrid inception v3 XGBoost
model for acute lymphoblastic leukemia
classification. Computational and Mathematical
Methods in Medicine, 2021.

An Innovative Deep Learning Framework Integrating Transfer- Learning And Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier For The Classification Of Breast Ultrasound Images

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Innovative Deep Learning Framework Integrating Transfer- Learning And Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier For The Classification Of Breast Ultrasound Images (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An Innovative Deep Learning Framework Integrating Transfer- Learning And Extreme Gradient Boosting Classifier For The Classification Of Breast Ultrasound Images