2018 17th IEEE International Conference On Trust, Security And Privacy In Computing And Communications/ 12th

IEEE International Conference On Big Data Science And Engineering

Automated Breast Cancer Detection using Machine

Learning Techniques by Extracting Different Feature
Extracting Strategies
Lal Hussain*, Wajid Aziz*, Sharjil Saeed*, Saima Rathore†, Muhammad Rafique††
*Department of Computer Science & IT, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
†Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
††Department of Physics, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
lall_hussain2008@live.com, kh_wajid@yahoo.com, rajasharjeel@gmail.com

Abstract—This Breast Cancer in women is the most frequency
diagnosed and second leading cause of cancer deaths. Due to
complex nature of microcalcification and masses, radiologist fail
to properly diagnose breast cancer. In past researchers
developed Computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems that help the
radiologist to detect abnormalities in an efficient manner. In this
research, we have employed robust Machine learning
classification techniques such as Support vector machine (SVM)
kernels and Decision Tree to distinguish cancer mammograms
from normal subjects. Different features are proposed such as
texture, morphological entropy based, scale invariant feature
transform (SIFT), and elliptic Fourier descriptors (EFDs). These
features are passed as input to ML classifiers. Jack-knife 10-fold
cross validation was used and performance evaluated in term of
specificity, sensitivity, Positive predive value (PPV), negative
predictive value (NPV), false positive rate (FPR) and receive
operating curve (ROC). The highest performance based on single
feature extracting strategy was obtained using Bayesian
approach with texture and EFDs features, and SVM RBF and
Gaussian kernels with EFDs features whereas highest AUC with
single feature was obtained using Bayesian approach by
extracting texture, morphological, EFDs and entropy features
and SVM RBF and Gaussian kernels with EFDs features
I. INTRODUCTION
Breast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed
cancer in women worldwide. In developing countries, breast
cancer accounts for 23% of the total cancer cases and 1.6
million new cases of the breast cancer are estimated
worldwide affecting the women [1]–[3] The breast cancer
accounts for nearly one in three cancers among US women
excluding skin cancer and second leading cause of cancer
death among women after lung cancer [4]. In 2016, about 29%
deaths were accounted in female due to breast cancer in the
United State. In 2016, it was estimated that 595,690 American
will die from cancer corresponding to 1,600 deaths per day
[5]. The most common cause of cancer deaths are lung and
bronchus, prostate, and colorectum in men and lung and
bronchus, breast, and colorectum in women. The invasive
cancer lifetime probability of being diagnosed in men (42%) is
higher than for women (38%) which may be due to some
external reflect differences in environment exposure,
endogenous hormones and complex interaction between these
influences. The cancer incidence and deaths in both men and
women are associated with adult height determined by
genetics and childhood nutrition is accounted for 1/3 of 6
differences in cancer risk [5], [6].
The early diagnosis and detection of breast cancer
can decrease the death rate and provide means for prompt
treatment. The breast cancer is diagnosed and detected using
combination of approaches including imaging, physical
examination and biopsy [7]. The imaging techniques used to
detect the breast cancer are mammography and ultrasound. In
this method X-ray is used to create images of the breast. These
images are known as mammograms. Radiologists who are
trained in to read mammograms to detect sign of breast
cancer. The effectively of screening process can rely on
radiologists’ explanation [8]. The patients affected by palpable
breast cancer may have sonogram and mammogram
examination with both normal and benign or nonspecific
appearance [9]. Biopsy is used to confirm the symptoms of
breast cancer, but it is invasive surgical operation causing
psychological and physical impact on patients.
Moreover, the research evidences indicate that
radiologists may miss up to 30 % of breast cancer depending
up on the density of breasts [10]. The mammograms in breast
cancer have been evaluated using two powerful indicators
known as masses and micro-calcifications. Mass detection is
more challenging than the micro-calcification, not due to the
large variation in size and shape in which masses can appear
in mammogram but also because masses often exhibit poor
image contrast [11]. Radiologists read the mammograms
based on judgement on experience, training and subjective
criteria. There may be 65-75% inter-observe variations rate
even by the trained experts [12] Thus, CAD may help the
radiologists to interpret the mammograms to detect and
classify masses. The literature also reveals that about 65-90%
of the biopsies of suspected cancers turned out to be benign,
thus it is very important to develop such techniques that can
distinguish the malignant and benign lesions. The combination
of CAD, expert knowledge and Machine learning techniques
would greatly improve the detection accuracy. The detection
accuracy without CAD was obtained below 80% and with
CAD above 90% [13].
In the previous studies, the researchers extracted
different features from colon biopsy images to detect the
cancer and distinguish the normal and malignant subjects.
[14], [15] analyzed distinctiveness of six texture features

2324-9013/18/31.00 ©2018 IEEE 327

DOI 10.1109/TrustCom/BigDataSE.2018.00057

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 19,2022 at 04:07:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 (contrast, angular second moment, correlation, entropy,
inverse difference moment, and dissimilarity) for
classification of colon biopsy images and obtained overall
accuracy of 90.2% [14]. [16] used probabilistic neural network
to diagnose the breast cancer by extracting multi-scale texture
properties of the tissue surrounding the micro-calcification
(MCs). Moreover, [17] proposed a colon biopsy image based
classification technique (CBIC) by extracting hybrid feature
set consisting of traditional histogram of oriented gradients
based features and variant of statistical moments and Haralick
texture features to classify the colon biopsy images by using
SVM classifier and obtained a 98.85% of classification
accuracy. In the past few decades, different other approaches
have also been used to detect and diagnose the breast colon
images including probabilistic algorithm and radial gradient
index based algorithm [18], Convolution Neural Network
(CNN) classifier [19] and mixed feature based neural network
[20], computerized method for the automated segmentation of
individual micro-calcifications in a region of interest (ROI)
[21], artificial intelligent techniques, including fractal
dimension analysis, with the discrete wavelet transform [20].
In the past researchers employed different features
extracting strategies such as texture, morphological, SIFT,
EFDs and combination of other features [22]–[24], [24]–[27].
The existing techniques have some limitations, the graph based
techniques are competitively expensive. The other CAD
techniques based on texture features exploited general texture
features for classification and fail to provide the background
knowledge of morphological features. Moreover, most of the
information hidden in the masses and micro-calcifications of
colon biopsy images was extracted using complexity based
sample entropy and wavelet entropy features [28], [29], [29]–
[32]. The machine learning methods based on different features
extracting strategies have limitations as different researchers
employed different features extracting methods, however, these
classifiers are not fine-tuned. In contract the deep learning
convolution neural network models with transfer learning
approaches are fine-tuned to optimize the parameters by
minimizing the error. To cope up the problem, we have
employed following transfer learning approaches using Deep
learning methods. Based on the limitations of existing features,
we extracted different features from Breast Cancer Images.
II. MATERIAL AND METHODS
A. Data Sets
Data Set were taken from publicly available database
provided by the University of South Florida [33] and used in
[34] available online at
(http://marathon.csee.usf.edu/Mammography/Database.html).
The Digital Database for Screening Mammography (DDMS)
database contains the mammographic images for research
purposes which is the Using BI-RADS Descriptors and
Ensemble Learning for Classifying Masses 71 largest publicly
available resource for the mammogram analysis research
community. In DDSM images, suspicious regions of interest
(ROIs; including masses and microcalcifications) are marked
by experienced radiologists, and BI-RADS information is also
annotated for each abnormal region. In our experiment, we
328
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 19,2022 at 04:07:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
used mass instance images digitized by LUMYSIS. This
database contains approximately 2,500 studies. We used the
latest volumes of DDMS database i.e. of Normal volume 12
and for that of Cancer volume 15 containing a total of 899
images including 500 cancer images having 105 cases and 399
normal subject images having 100 cases.
B. Methods
The proposed system consists of four stages namely
pre-processing, features extraction, classification, training/
testing of data, and to classify images into normal and
malignant images using SVM, Decision Tree and Bayesian
classifier. The extracted individual and combination of
features are then passed as input to the Machine learning
classifiers such as SVM polynomial, RBF and Gaussian
kernels, Bayesian classification approach and Decision Tree.
The detailed algorithms are described in the classifiers section.
Finally, the training and target data split was made using
Jackknife 10-fold cross validation to classify the normal and
cancer subjects. In this study, we extracted morphological,
texture, entropy, SIFT and EFDs features as detailed in
Hussain et al. [26]. In this study, we have employed robust
Support Vector Machine and its kernel, Naïve Bayes and
Decision Tree algorithms as detailed by Hussain et al. [26],
[32].
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The classification performance was measured using
different classifiers such as Bayesian approach, SVM with
linear, polynomial, RBF (Radial Base Function) and Gaussian
kernels and Decision Tree. The performance was evaluated
by extracting various features such as texture, morphological,
SIFT, EFDs and Entropy based features as shown in table 3.
The highest 100 % performance in term of specificity,
sensitivity, PPV, NPV, TA, AUC was obtained using Bayes,
SVM polynomial and SVM Gaussian with EFDs feature set,
texture features using Bayes classifier and entropy and
morphological features using SVM RBF followed by Bayes
using morphological and entropy features reflecting TA
(99.89% and 99.67%) respectively. The total accuracy
obtained using Decision tree classifiers with EFDs
(TA=97.22%), Gaussian with texture feature as (TA=97.44%).
The total accuracy with SVM RBF kernel using texture
features was obtained as (TA=96.49%) and DT with Texture
(TA=95.88%), Morphological (TA=95.88%) was obtained. A
good total accuracy was obtained using SVM polynomial
kernel with texture features (TA=93.77%), Morphological
(TA=90.66%), SVM Gaussian with morphological features
(TA=90.66%), and Decision Tree with SIFT features
(TA=91.70%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and
FPR are obtained accordingly using different classifiers and
set of features as reflected in Table 1. The PPV and NPV
denote the proportion of breast cancer with positive and
negative results diagnosed correctly for each case respectively
and these results are depended on the prevalence of disease.
The findings also reveal that individual parameters could
provide either good sensitivity or good specificity.
 The AUC values using single feature and different Machine
learning classifiers are obtained as reflected in Table 1 and
Figure 2. The highest separation (AUC=100%) was obtained
using Bayesian classifier with texture, morphological, EFDs,
and Entropy. Moreover, SVM polynomial with EFDs, RBF
with morphological and entropy feature and SVM Gaussian
with EFDs features also exhibit highest (AUC=100%).
Likewise, the Decision Tree showed also highest
(AUC=100%) using texture, morphological, EFDs, SIFT and
entropy features followed by SVM Gaussian with texture
features (AUC=99.97%), SVM RBF with SIFT feature
(AUC=99.02%), and SVM polynomial with texture feature
(AUC=97.81%), and morphological feature (AUC=97.16%). (c)
Likewise, AUC values obtained using SVM polynomial with
entropy feature (AUC=95.26%). SVM Gaussian with
morphological feature give (AUC=96.52%), and with entropy
feature (AUC=94.20%) and SIFT (AUC=93.91%).
The performance was evaluated using receiver operating curve
(ROC) analysis. The proximity of a measured value to the
true value is indicated by accuracy measure. The proportion of
positive results are measured using sensitivity such as percent
of correctly identified cancer patients and specificity denote
the proportion of correctly identified normal subjects and
negative. The sensitivity in the ROC curve is measured by
plotting the function of (1-specificity) for different operating
points. The specificity/ sensitivity pair on ROC plot is denoted (d)
by each operating point corresponding to a decision threshold.

(a) (e)
Fig. 1. ROC Analysis based on Signle feature set using a) Texture b)
Morphological c) Entropy d) EFDs e) SIFT

(b)

329

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 19,2022 at 04:07:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE 1: CLASSIFICATION ON USING ML TECHNIQUES FOR INDIVIDUAL FEATURES EXTRACTING STRATEGY

FEATURE Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV TA FPR AUC

Bayes
Texture 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Morphologi 0.9989 0.9991 0.9989 0.9986 0.9989 0.0008 1
SIFT 0.7263 0.6816 0.7307 0.7359 0.7263 0.3184 0.8033
EFDs 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Entropy 0.9967 0.9958 0.9967 0.9974 0.9967 0.0042 1
SVM Polynomial
Texture 0.9377 0.9316 0.9381 0.9406 0.9377 0.06844 0.9781
Morphologi 0.9066 0.8981 0.9072 0.9098 0.9066 0.1019 0.9716
SIFT 0.7977 0.7721 0.7988 0.8014 0.7977 0.2279 0.8693
EFDs 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Entropy 0.8921 0.8795 0.8941 0.8992 0.8921 0.1205 0.9526
SVM RBF
Texture 0.7531 0.7265 0.7564 0.7607 0.7531 0.273 0.8389
Morphologi 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
SIFT 0.9649 0.9542 0.9667 0.9741 0.9649 0.04577 0.9902
EFDs 0.5717 0.479 0.5797 0.5822 0.5717 0.521 0.6897
Entropy 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
SVM Gaussian
Texture 0.9744 0.972 0.9745 0.9755 0.9744 0.0280 0.9977
Morphologi 0.911 0.9057 0.911 0.9113 0.911 0.0943 0.9652
SIFT 0.8596 0.8468 0.8596 0.8593 0.8596 0.1532 0.9391
EFDs 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Entropy 0.8843 0.8722 0.8858 0.8899 0.8843 0.1278 0.942
Decision Tree
Texture 0.9588 0.955 0.959 0.9605 0.9588 0.0449 1
Morphologi 0.9588 0.9606 0.9592 0.9556 0.9588 0.03942 1
SIFT 0.917 0.9147 0.9171 0.913 0.917 0.08533 1
EFDs 0.9722 0.9712 0.9722 0.9717 0.9722 0.02877 1
Entropy 0.9455 0.9489 0.9466 0.9409 0.9455 0.05109 1

IV. CONCLUSION
In this research, the robust Machine learning classification
techniques such as SVM kernels, Bayesian approach and
Decision Tree are employed to distinguish the cancer
mammograms from that of normal subjects. The masse
detection due to low image contrast and microcalsification due
to large variation in size shape require multi-dimension
features extracting strategies to effectively distinguish the
cancer mammograms. Thus, to cope with this problem, we
extracted different features based on texture, morphology,
SIFT and EFDs. To distinguish the normal mammograms from
that of breast cancer, the robust machine learning classification
techniques such as SVM, Bayes approach and Decision tree are
developed in Matlab version 2015. The 10-fold cross validation
was used to train and test the image database. The performance
was measured based on specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV,
FPR and AUC. The result revealed that different features
extracting strategies and classifiers effectively provide the
highest performance to detect the breast cancer mammograms.
References
[1] M. H. Forouzanfar, K. J. Foreman, A. M. Delossantos, R.
Lozano, A. D. Lopez, C. J. L. Murray, and M. Naghavi,
“Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980
and 2010: A systematic analysis,” Lancet, vol. 378, no.
9801, pp. 1461–1484, 2011.
[2] A. Jemal, F. Bray, and J. Ferlay, “Global Cancer Statistics:
2011,” CA Cancer J Clin, vol. 49, no. 2, p. 1,33-64, 1999.
[3] J. Dheeba, N. Albert Singh, and S. Tamil Selvi, “Computer-
aided detection of breast cancer on mammograms: A swarm
intelligence optimized wavelet neural network approach,” J.
Biomed. Inform., vol. 49, pp. 45–52, 2014.
[4] C. E. Desantis, S. A. Fedewa, A. G. Sauer, J. L. Kramer, R.
A. Smith, and A. Jemal, “Breast Cancer Statistics , 2015 :
Convergence of Incidence Rates Between Black and White
Women,” A cancer J. Clin., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2016.
[5] R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics,”
CA Cancer J Clin, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2016.
[6] S. Wirén, C. Häggström, H. Ulmer, J. Manjer, T. Bjørge, G.
Nagel, D. Johansen, G. Hallmans, A. Engeland, H. Concin,
H. Jonsson, R. Selmer, S. Tretli, T. Stocks, and P. Stattin,
“Pooled cohort study on height and risk of cancer and cancer

330

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 19,2022 at 04:07:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 death,” Cancer Causes Control, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 151–159,
2014.
[7] A. A. Ardakani, A. Gharbali, and A. Mohammadi,
“Classification of breast tumors using sonographic texture
analysis,” J. Ultrasound Med., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 225–231,
2015.
[8] B. L. Sprague, E. F. Conant, T. Onega, M. P. Garcia, E. F.
Beaber, S. D. Herschorn, C. D. Lehman, A. N. A. Tosteson,
R. Lacson, M. D. Schnall, D. Kontos, J. S. Haas, D. L.
Weaver, and W. E. Barlow, “Variation in Mammographic
Breast Density Assessments among Radiologists in Clinical
Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study,” Ann. Intern.
Med., vol. 165, no. 7, pp. 457–464, 2016.
[9] P. E. Freer, “Mammographic breast density: impact on
breast cancer risk and implications for screening.,”
Radiographics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 302–15, 2015.
[10] T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse, “Comparison of
the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical
Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that
Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient
Evaluations,” Radiology, vol. 225, no. 1, pp. 165–175, 2002.
[11] H. D. Cheng, X. J. Shi, R. Min, L. M. Hu, X. P. Cai, and H.
N. Du, “Approaches for automated detection and
classification of masses in mammograms,” Pattern
Recognit., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 646–668, 2006.
[12] P. Skaane and K. Engedal, “Analysis of sonographic
features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive
ductal carcinoma. AJR,” Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 170, no. 1,
pp. 109–114, 1998.
[13] K. Doi, D. Ph, and K. Rossmann, “Computer- Aided
Diagnosis : Potential Usefulness in : Diagnostic Radiology
and Telemedicine,” in Research, Practice, and
Opportunities., Proceedings of the National Forum, 1996,
pp. 9–13.
[14] A. N. Esgiar, R. N. Naguib, B. S. Sharif, M. K. Bennett, and
A. Murray, “Microscopic image analysis for quantitative
measurement and feature identification of normal and
cancerous colonic mucosa.,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol.
Biomed., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 197–203, 1998.
[15] A. N. Esgiar, R. N. G. Naguib, B. S. Sharif, M. K. Bennett,
and A. Murray, “Fractal analysis in the detection of colonic
cancer images.,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed., vol. 6,
no. 1, pp. 54–8, 2002.
[16] A. N. Karahaliou, I. S. Boniatis, S. G. Skiadopoulos, F. N.
Sakellaropoulos, N. S. Arikidis, L. E. A. Likaki, G. S.
Panayiotakis, and L. I. Costaridou, “Breast cancer diagnosis:
Analyzing texture of tissue surrounding
microcalcifications,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed.,
vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 731–738, 2008.
[17] S. Rathore, M. Hussain, A. Ali, and A. Khan, “A recent
survey on colon cancer detection techniques.,” IEEE/ACM
Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 545–63,
2013.
[18] M. A. Kupinski and M. L. Giger, “Automated seeded lesion
segmentation on digital mammograms,” IEEE Trans. Med.
Imaging, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 510–517, 1998.
[19] B. Sahiner, H. P. Chan, N. Petrick, M. A. Helvie, and L. M.
Hadjiiski, “Improvement of mammographic mass
characterization using spiculation measures and
morphological features,” Med. Phys., vol. 28, no. 7, pp.
1455–1465, 2001.
[20] L. Zheng and A. K. Chan, “An artificial intelligent
algorithm for tumor detection in screening mammogram,”
IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 559–567,
331
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 19,2022 at 04:07:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2001.
[21] S. Rathore, M. Hussain, and A. Khan, “Automated colon
cancer detection using hybrid of novel geometric features
and some traditional features,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 65,
pp. 279–296, 2015.
[22] “1,2 * 1:,” no. October, pp. 1–11, 2011.
[23] S. Rathore, M. Hussain, M. Aksam Iftikhar, and A. Jalil,
“Ensemble classification of colon biopsy images based on
information rich hybrid features,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol.
47, no. 1, pp. 76–92, 2014.
[24] S. Rathore, M. Hussain, and A. Khan, “Automated colon
cancer detection using hybrid of novel geometric features
and some traditional features,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 65,
no. March, pp. 279–296, 2015.
[25] S. Rathore, A. Iftikhar, A. Ali, M. Hussain, and A. Jalil,
“Capture largest included circles: An approach for counting
red blood cells,” Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 281 CCIS,
pp. 373–384, 2012.
[26] L. Hussain, A. Ahmed, S. Saeed, S. Rathore, and I. Ahmed,
“Prostate cancer detection using machine learning
techniques by employing combination of features extracting
strategies,” Cancer Biomarkers, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 393–413,
2018.
[27] Y. Asim, B. Raza, A. Kamran, and M. Saima, “A multi-
modal , multi-atlas-based approach for Alzheimer detection
via machine learning,” Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol., pp. 1–
11, 2018.
[28] L. Hussain, W. Aziz, S. Saeed, S. A. Shah, M. S. A.
Nadeem, A. Awan, A. Abbas, A. Majid, S. Zaki, and H.
Kazmi, “Complexity analysis of EEG motor movement with
eye open and close subjects using multiscale permutation
entropy ( MPE ) technique .,” Biomed. Res., vol. 28, no. 16,
pp. 7104–7111, 2017.
[29] L. Hussain, S. Saeed, I. A. Awan, and A. Idris, “Multiscaled
Complexity Analysis of EEG Epileptic Seizure Using
Entropy-Based Techniques,” Arch. Neurosci., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 1–11, 2018.
[30] L. Hussain, W. Aziz, S. Saeed, S. A. Shah, M. S. A.
Nadeem, I. A. Awan, A. Abbas, A. Majid, and S. Z. H.
Kazmi, “Quantifying the dynamics of
electroencephalographic (EEG) signals to distinguish
alcoholic and non-alcoholic subjects using an MSE based K-
d tree algorithm,” Biomed. Eng. / Biomed. Tech., vol. 0, no.
0, 2017.
[31] L. Hussain, W. Aziz, J. S. Alowibdi, N. Habib, M. Rafique,
S. Saeed, and S. Z. H. Kazmi, “Symbolic time series
analysis of electroencephalographic (EEG) epileptic seizure
and brain dynamics with eye-open and eye-closed subjects
during resting states,” J. Physiol. Anthropol., vol. 36, no. 1,
p. 21, 2017.
[32] L. Hussain, “Detecting epileptic seizure with different
feature extracting strategies using robust machine learning
classification techniques by applying advance parameter
optimization approach,” Cogn. Neurodyn., vol. 12, no. 3, pp.
271–294, 2018.
[33] M. Heath, B. Kevin, K. Daniel, K. P., M. Richard, and C.
Kyong, “Current status of the digital database for screening
mammography,” in In Digital mammography, 1998, pp.
457–460.
[34] Y. Zhang, N. Tomuro, J. Furst, and D. S. Raicu, “Using BI-
RADS descriptors and ensemble learning for classifying
masses in mammograms,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.
(including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes
Bioinformatics), vol. 5853 LNCS, pp. 69–76, 2010.