Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image Classification with Genetic Programming: Building a Stage 1 Computer Aided Detector for Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
Handbook of Genetic Programming Applications

Abstract

This chapter describes a general approach for image classification using Genetic Programming (GP) and demonstrates this approach through the application of GP to the task of stage 1 cancer detection in digital mammograms. We detail an automated work-flow that begins with image processing and culminates in the evolution of classification models which identify suspicious segments of mammograms. Early detection of breast cancer is directly correlated with survival of the disease and mammography has been shown to be an effective tool for early detection, which is why many countries have introduced national screening programs. However, this presents challenges, as such programs involve screening a large number of women and thus require more trained radiologists at a time when there is a shortage of these professionals in many countries.Also, as mammograms are difficult to read and radiologists typically only have a few minutes allocated to each image, screening programs tend to be conservative—involving many callbacks which increase both the workload of the radiologists and the stress and worry of patients.Fortunately, the relatively recent increase in the availability of mammograms in digital form means that it is now much more feasible to develop automated systems for analysing mammograms. Such systems, if successful could provide a very valuable second reader function.We present a work-flow that begins by processing digital mammograms to segment them into smaller sub-images and to extract features which describe textural aspects of the breast. The most salient of these features are then used in a GP system which generates classifiers capable of identifying which particular segments may have suspicious areas requiring further investigation. An important objective of this work is to evolve classifiers which detect as many cancers as possible but which are not overly conservative. The classifiers give results of 100 % sensitivity and a false positive per image rating of just 0.33, which is better than prior work. Not only this, but our system can use GP as part of a feedback loop, to both select and help generate further features.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The actual incidence over a patient’s lifetime is closer to 1 in 7 (Kerlikowske et al. 1993).

References

  • Amir Atapour Abarghouei, Afshin Ghanizadeh, Saman Sinaie, and Siti Mariyam Shamsuddin. A survey of pattern recognition applications in cancer diagnosis. In International Conference of Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition, SOCPAR ’09, pages 448–453, December 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davide Agnelli, Alessandro Bollini, and Luca Lombardi. Image classification: an evolutionary approach. Pattern Recognition Letters, 23(1–3):303–309, 2002.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Arbab Masood Ahmad, Gul Muhammad Khan, Sahibzada Ali Mahmud, and Julian Francis Miller. Breast cancer detection using cartesian genetic programming evolved artificial neural networks. In Terry Soule et al, editor, GECCO ’12: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pages 1031–1038, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 7–11 July 2012. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehan Akbani, Stephen Kwek, and Nathalie Japkowicz. Applying support vector machines to imbalanced datasets. In Machine Learning: ECML 2004, pages 39–50. Springer, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harith Al-Sahaf, Andy Song, Kourosh Neshatian, and Mengjie Zhang. Extracting image features for classification by two-tier genetic programming. In Xiaodong Li, editor, Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 1630–1637, Brisbane, Australia, 10–15 June 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harith Al-Sahaf, Mengjie Zhang, and Mark Johnston. Binary image classification using genetic programming based on local binary patterns. In 28th International Conference of Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ 2013), pages 220–225, Wellington, November 2013. IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edén A Alanís-Reyes, José L Hernández-Cruz, Jesús S Cepeda, Camila Castro, Hugo Terashima-Marín, and Santiago E Conant-Pablos. Analysis of machine learning techniques applied to the classification of masses and microcalcification clusters in breast cancer computer-aided detection. Journal of Cancer Therapy, 3:1020, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jun Ando and Tomoharu Nagao. Image classification and processing using modified parallel-ACTIT. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 2009, pages 1787–1791, October 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • David Andre. Automatically defined features: The simultaneous evolution of 2-dimensional feature detectors and an algorithm for using them. In Kenneth E. Kinnear, Jr., editor, Advances in Genetic Programming, chapter 23, pages 477–494. MIT Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • I Anttinen, M Pamilo, M Soiva, and M Roiha. Double reading of mammography screening films-one radiologist or two? Clinical Radiology, 48(6):414–421, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel Atkins, Kourosh Neshatian, and Mengjie Zhang. A domain independent genetic programming approach to automatic feature extraction for image classification. In Alice E. Smith, editor, Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 238–245, New Orleans, USA, 5–8 June 2011. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavo EAPA Batista, Ronaldo C Prati, and Maria Carolina Monard. A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data. ACM Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, 6(1):20–29, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radek Benes, Jan Karasek, Radim Burget, and Kamil Riha. Automatically designed machine vision system for the localization of CCA transverse section in ultrasound images. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 109(1):92–103, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl A Benson. Evolving finite state machines with embedded genetic programming for automatic target detection within SAR imagery. In Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC00, pages 1543–1549, La Jolla Marriott Hotel La Jolla, California, USA, 6–9 July 2000. IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard Berlin. Liability of interpreting too many radiographs. American Journal of Roentgenology, 175:17–22, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mythreyi Bhargavan, Jonathan H. Sunshine, and Barbara Schepps. Too few radiologists? American Journal of Roentgenology, 178:1075–1082, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keir Bovis and Sameer Singh. Detection of masses in mammograms using texture features. In Pattern Recognition, 2000. Proceedings. 15th International Conference on, volume 2, pages 267–270. IEEE, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • NF Boyd, JW Byng, RA Jong, EK Fishell, LE Little, AB Miller, GA Lockwood, DL Tritchler, and Martin J Yaffe. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the canadian national breast screening study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87(9):670–675, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman F Boyd, Gina A Lockwood, Jeff W Byng, David L Tritchler, and Martin J Yaffe. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 7(12):1133–1144, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behzad Bozorgtabar and Gholam Ali Rezai Rad. A genetic programming-PCA hybrid face recognition algorithm. Journal of Signal and Information Processing, 2(3):170–174, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. M. Brake, N. Karssemeijer, and J. H. Hendricks. Automated detection of breast carcinomas not detected in a screening program. Radiology, 207:465–471, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher D Brown and Herbert T Davis. Receiver operating characteristics curves and related decision measures: A tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 80(1):24–38, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celia Byrne, Catherine Schairer, Louise A Brinton, John Wolfe, Navin Parekh, Martine Salane, Christine Carter, and Robert Hoover. Effects of mammographic density and benign breast disease on breast cancer risk (united states). Cancer Causes & Control, 12(2):103–110, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16:321–357, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Chen and Siwei Lu. A genetic programming approach for classification of textures based on wavelet analysis. In IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing, WISP 2007, pages 1–6, October 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heng-Da Cheng, Jingli Wang, and Xiangjun Shi. Microcalcification detection using fuzzy logic and scale space approaches. Pattern Recognition, 37(2):363–375, 2004.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sunil Cho, Sung Ho Jin, Ju Won Kwon, Yong Man Ro, and Sung Min Kim. Microcalcification detection system in digital mammogram using two-layer svm. In Electronic Imaging 2008, pages 68121I–68121I. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • S Ciatto, D Ambrogetti, R Bonardi, S Catarzi, G Risso, M Rosselli Del Turco, and P Mantellini. Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. results in the florence screening programme. Journal of medical screening, 12(2):103–106, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tommy E. Cupples, Joan E. Cunningham, and James C. Reynolds. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. American Journal of Roentgenology, 186:944–950, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 6(2):182–197, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • F Dehghan, H Abrishami-Moghaddam, and M Giti. Automatic detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms: Study on applying adaboost with svm-based component classifiers. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS 2008. 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pages 4789–4792. IEEE, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atam P Dhawan, Yateen Chitre, and Christine Kaiser-Bonasso. Analysis of mammographic microcalcifications using gray-level image structure features. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 15(3):246–259, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedro Domingos. Metacost: A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 155–164. ACM, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julie A Douglas, Marie-Hélène Roy-Gagnon, Chuan Zhou, Braxton D Mitchell, Alan R Shuldiner, Heang-Ping Chan, and Mark A Helvie. Mammographic breast density evidence for genetic correlations with established breast cancer risk factors. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(12):3509–3516, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei Fan, Salvatore J Stolfo, Junxin Zhang, and Philip K Chan. Adacost: misclassification cost-sensitive boosting. In ICML, pages 97–105. Citeseer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannie Fitzgerald and Conor Ryan. Exploring boundaries: optimising individual class boundaries for binary classification problem. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO ’12, pages 743–750, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannie Fitzgerald and Conor Ryan. A hybrid approach to the problem of class imbalance. In International Conference on Soft Computing, Brno, Czech Republic, June 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Félix-Antoine Fortin and Marc Parizeau. Revisiting the nsga-ii crowding-distance computation. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’13, pages 623–630, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoav Freund and Robert E. Schapire. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 148–156, San Francisco, 1996. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenlong Fu, Mark Johnston, and Mengjie Zhang. Low-level feature extraction for edge detection using genetic programming. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 44(8):1459–1472, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesan, K. et al. Decision support system for breast cancer detection using mammograms. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 227(7):721–732, January 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour Geisser. Predictive Inference. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 1993.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mark Hall, Eibe Frank, Geoffrey Holmes, Bernhard Pfahringer, Peter Reutemann, and Ian H. Witten. The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 11(1):10–18, November 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. et al Haralick. Texture features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3(6), 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome Friedman, T Hastie, J Friedman, and R Tibshirani. The elements of statistical learning, volume 2. Springer, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haibo He and Edwardo A Garcia. Learning from imbalanced data. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 21(9):1263–1284, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Heath, Kevin Bowyer, Daniel Kopans, Richard Moore, and W. Philip Kegelmeyer. The digital database for screening mammography. In M.J. Yaffe, editor, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Digital Mammography, pages 212–218. Medical Physics Publishing, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolando R Hernández-Cisneros, Hugo Terashima-Marín, and Santiago E Conant-Pablos. Comparison of class separability, forward sequential search and genetic algorithms for feature selection in the classification of individual and clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms. In Image Analysis and Recognition, pages 911–922. Springer, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel Howard, Simon C. Roberts, and Conor Ryan. The boru data crawler for object detection tasks in machine vision. In Stefano Cagnoni, Jens Gottlieb, Emma Hart, Martin Middendorf, and G”unther Raidl, editors, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, Proceedings of EvoWorkshops2002: EvoCOP, EvoIASP, EvoSTim/EvoPLAN, volume 2279 of LNCS, pages 222–232, Kinsale, Ireland, 3–4 April 2002. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel Howard, Simon C. Roberts, and Conor Ryan. Pragmatic genetic programming strategy for the problem of vehicle detection in airborne reconnaissance. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(11):1275–1288, August 2006. Evolutionary Computer Vision and Image Understanding.

    Google Scholar 

  • MK Hu. Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants. Trans. Info. Theory,, IT-8:179–187, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Hughes and S. Jacobzone. Ageing-related diseases project: Comparing treatments, costs and outcomes for breast cancer in oecd countries. OECD Health Working Papers, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satoru Isaka. An empirical study of facial image feature extraction by genetic programming. In John R. Koza, editor, Late Breaking Papers at the 1997 Genetic Programming Conference, pages 93–99, Stanford University, CA, USA, 13–16 July 1997. Stanford Bookstore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahesh V Joshi, Vipin Kumar, and Ramesh C Agarwal. Evaluating boosting algorithms to classify rare classes: Comparison and improvements. In Data Mining, 2001. ICDM 2001, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on, pages 257–264. IEEE, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karla Kerlikowske, Deborah Grady, John Barclay, Edward A. Sickles, Abigail Eaton, and Virginia Ernster. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270:2444–2450, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N Kharma, Taras Kowaliw, E Clement, Chris Jensen, A Youssef, and Jie Yao. Project cellnet: Evolving an autonomous pattern recognizer. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 18(06):1039–1056, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maciej Komosiński and Krzysztof Krawiec. Evolutionary weighting of image features for diagnosing of cns tumors. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 19(1):25–38, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel B. Kopans. The most recent breast cancer screening controversy about whether mammographic screening benefits women at any age:nonsense and nonscience. American Journal of Roentgenology, 180:21–26, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotiris Kotsiantis, Dimitris Kanellopoulos, Panayiotis Pintelas, et al. Handling imbalanced datasets: A review. GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, 30(1):25–36, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taras Kowaliw, Wolfgang Banzhaf, Nawwaf Kharma, and Simon Harding. Evolving novel image features using genetic programming-based image transforms. In Evolutionary Computation, 2009. CEC’09. IEEE Congress on, pages 2502–2507. IEEE, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Koza. Genetic programming: A paradigm for genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems. Technical Report STAN-CS-90-1314, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • John R. Koza. Simultaneous discovery of detectors and a way of using the detectors via genetic programming. In 1993 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, volume III, pages 1794–1801, San Francisco, USA, 1993. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztof Krawiec. Genetic programming-based construction of features for machine learning and knowledge discovery tasks. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 3(4):329–343, 2002.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztof Krawiec. Genetic programming with alternative search drivers for detection of retinal blood vessels. In Applications of Evolutionary Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztof Krawiec, Daniel Howard, and Mengjie Zhang. Overview of object detection and image analysis by means of genetic programming techniques. In Frontiers in the Convergence of Bioscience and Information Technologies, 2007. FBIT 2007, pages 779–784. IEEE, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miroslav Kubat, Stan Matwin, et al. Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection. In ICML, volume 97, pages 179–186. Nashville, USA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 79–86, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. A. Feig L. J. Warren Burhenne, C. J. D’Orsi. The potential contribution to computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology, 215:554–562, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brian Lam and Vic Ciesielski. Discovery of human-competitive image texture feature extraction using genetic programming. In K. Debs et al., editor, LNCS, volume 3103, pages 1114–1125. GECCO, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • W.B. Langdon and A.P. Harrison. Gp on spmd parallel graphics hardware for mega bioinformatics data mining. Soft Computing, 12(12):1169–1183, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • William B Langdon, Marc Modat, Justyna Petke, and Mark Harman. Improving 3d medical image registration cuda software with genetic programming. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 951–958. ACM, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincenzo Lattanzio, C Di Maggio, and G Simonetti. Mammography: Guide to Interpreting, Reporting and Auditing Mammographic Images-Re. Co. RM (From Italian Reporting and Codifying the Results of Mammography). Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huai Li, Yue Wang, KJ Ray Liu, S-CB Lo, and Matthew T Freedman. Computerized radiographic mass detection. i. lesion site selection by morphological enhancement and contextual segmentation. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 20(4):289–301, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi Liu and Taghi Khoshgoftaar. Reducing overfitting in genetic programming models for software quality classification. In Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE Symposium on International High Assurance Systems Engineering, pages 56–65, Tampa, Florida, USA, 25–26 March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simone A. Ludwig and Stefanie Roos. Prognosis of breast cancer using genetic programming. In Rossitza Setchi, Ivan Jordanov, Robert J. Howlett, and Lakhmi C. Jain, editors, 14th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (KES 2010), Part IV, volume 6279 of LNCS, pages 536–545, Cardiff, UK, September 8–10 2010. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • M Markey M. Sampat and A Bovik. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis in mammography. In Alan C. Bovik, editor, Handbook of Image and Video Processing. Elsevier Academic Press, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • MATLAB. version 8.2 (R2012a). MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valerie A McCormack and Isabel dos Santos Silva. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 15(6):1159–1169, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naga R Mudigonda, Rangaraj M Rangayyan, and JE Leo Desautels. Gradient and texture analysis for the classification of mammographic masses. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 19(10):1032–1043, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. J. Nandi, A. K. Nandi, R. Rangayyan, and D. Scutt. Genetic programming and feature selection for classification of breast masses in mammograms. In 28th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS ’06, pages 3021–3024, New York, USA, August 2006. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. W. Nishikawa, K. Doi, and M. L. Geiger. Computerised detection of clustered microcalcifications: evaluation of performance on mammograms from multiple centers. Radiographics, 15:445–452, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American College of Radiology. ACR BIRADS Mammography, Ultrasound & MRI, 4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston VA, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Ojala, M. Pietikäinen, and D. Harwood. Performance evaluation of texture measures with classification based on kullback discrimination of distributions. In Proceedings of the 12th IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 1994), pages 582–585. IEEE, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnau Oliver, Xavier Lladó, Jordi Freixenet, and Joan Martí. False positive reduction in mammographic mass detection using local binary patterns. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2007, pages 286–293. Springer, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrashekhar Padole and Joanne Athaide. Automatic eye detection in face images for unconstrained biometrics using genetic programming. In Bijaya Ketan Panigrahi, Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan, Swagatam Das, and Subhransu Sekhar Dash, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing (SEMCCO 2013), Part II, volume 8298 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 364–375, Chennai, India, December 19–21 2013. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanasios Papadopoulos, Dimitrios I Fotiadis, and Aristidis Likas. Characterization of clustered microcalcifications in digitized mammograms using neural networks and support vector machines. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 34(2):141–150, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825–2830, 2011.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas Petrick, Berkman Sahiner, Samuel G Armato III, Alberto Bert, Loredana Correale, Silvia Delsanto, Matthew T Freedman, David Fryd, David Gur, Lubomir Hadjiiski, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection and diagnosis systemsa). Medical physics, 40(8):087001, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etta D Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Edward Hendrick, Martin Yaffe, Janet K Baum, Suddhasatta Acharyya, Emily F Conant, Laurie L Fajardo, Lawrence Bassett, Carl D’Orsi, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(17):1773–1783, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. E. Polakowski, D. A. Cournoyer, and S. K. Rogers. Computer-aided breast cancer detection and diagnosis of masses using difference of gaussians and derivative-based feature saliency,. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., 16:811–819, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riccardo Poli. Genetic programming for image analysis. In Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Genetic Programming, pages 363–368. MIT Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangaraj M Rangayyan, Nema M El-Faramawy, JE Leo Desautels, and Onsy Abdel Alim. Measures of acutance and shape for classification of breast tumors. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 16(6):799–810, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam G Riess, Alexei V Filippenko, Peter Challis, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alan Diercks, Peter M Garnavich, Ron L Gilliland, Craig J Hogan, Saurabh Jha, Robert P Kirshner, et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. The Astronomical Journal, 116(3):1009, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mateen M. Rizki, Michael A. Zmuda, and Louis A. Tamburino. Evolving pattern recognition systems. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 6(6):594–609, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerald Robinson and Paul McIlroy. Exploring some commercial applications of genetic programming. Project 4487, British Telecom, Systems Research Division, Martelsham, Ipswitch, UK, 9/3/95 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conor Ryan, Krzysztof Krawiec, Una-May O’Reilly, Jeannie Fitzgerald, and David Medernach. Building a stage 1 computer aided detector for breast cancer using genetic programming. In M. Nicolau, K. Krawiec, M. I. Heywood, M. Castelli, P. Garci-Sanchez, J. J. Merelo, V. M. R. Santos, and K. Sim, editors, 17th European Conference on Genetic Programming, volume 8599 of LNCS, pages 162–173, Granada, Spain, 23–25 April 2014. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conor Ryan, Krzysztof Krawiec, Una-May O’Reilly, Jeannie Fitzgerald, and David Medernach. Building a stage 1 computer aided detector for breast cancer using genetic programming. In Genetic Programming, pages 162–173. Springer, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman Sahiner, Heang-Ping Chan, Datong Wei, Nicholas Petrick, Mark A Helvie, Dorit D Adler, and Mitchell M Goodsitt. Image feature selection by a genetic algorithm: Application to classification of mass and normal breast tissue. Medical Physics, 23(10):1671–1684, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • E Sakka, A Prentza, and D Koutsouris. Classification algorithms for microcalcifications in mammograms (review). Oncology reports, 15(4):1049–1055, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalo V Sánchez-Ferrero and Juan Ignacio Arribas. A statistical-genetic algorithm to select the most significant features in mammograms. In Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns, pages 189–196. Springer, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling Shao, Li Liu, and Xuelong Li. Feature learning for image classification via multiobjective genetic programming. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 25(7):1359–1371, July 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert A Smith, Stephen W Duffy, and László Tabár. Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology, 26(5):471–475, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh, Farshid Rafiee-Rad, and Siamak Pourabdollah-Nejad D. Comparison of multiwavelet, wavelet, haralick, and shape features for microcalcification classification in mammograms. Pattern Recognition, 37(10):1973–1986, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andy Song, Vic Ciesielski, and Hugh E Williams. Texture classifiers generated by genetic programming. In Computational Intelligence, Proceedings of the World on Congress on, volume 1, pages 243–248. IEEE, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul Stober and Shi-Tao Yeh. An explicit functional form specification approach to estimate the area under a receiver operating characteristic (roc) curve. Avaialable at, http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi27/p226--227.pdf, Accessed March, 7, 2007.

  • R Strickland and Hee Il Hahn. Wavelet transforms for detecting microcalcifications in mammograms. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on, 15(2):218–229, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabar, L. et al. A new era in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Surgical oncology clinics of North America, 9(2):233–77, April 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter Alden Tackett. Genetic programming for feature discovery and image discrimination. In Stephanie Forrest, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-93, pages 303–309, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 17–21 July 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • FJ Tan, MT Morgan, LI Ludas, JC Forrest, and DE Gerrard. Assessment of fresh pork color with color machine vision. Journal of animal science, 78(12):3078–3085, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erik L Thurfjell, K Anders Lernevall, and AA Taube. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology, 191(1):241–244, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Tot, L. Tabar, and P. B. Dean. The pressing need for better histologic-mammographic correlation of the many variations in normal breast anatomy. Virchows Archiv, 437(4):338–344, October 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardo Trujillo and Gustavo Olague. Synthesis of interest point detectors through genetic programming. In Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 887–894. ACM, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinne Tuytelaars and Krystian Mikolajczyk. Local invariant feature detectors: a survey. Foundations and Trends®; in Computer Graphics and Vision, 3(3):177–280, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brijesh Verma and Ping Zhang. A novel neural-genetic algorithm to find the most significant combination of features in digital mammograms. Applied Soft Computing, 7(2):612–625, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katharina Volk, Julian Miller, and Stephen Smith. Multiple network CGP for the classification of mammograms. In Mario Giacobini et al, editor, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops2009., volume 5484 of LNCS, pages 405–413, Tubingen, Germany, 15–17 April 2009. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. J. Vyborny. Can computers help radiologists read mammograms? Radiology, 191:315–317, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon Whitcher, Volker J. Schmid, and Andrew Thornton. Working with the DICOM and NIfTI data standards in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 44(6):1–28, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Winsberg, M. Elkin, J. Macy, V. Bordaz, and W. Weymout. Detection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis. Radiology, 89:211–215, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent J Woods. Computer-aided detection of malignant lesions in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI breast and prostate cancer datasets. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • William P Worzel, Jianjun Yu, Arpit A Almal, and Arul M Chinnaiyan. Applications of genetic programming in cancer research. The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology, 41(2):405–413, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhi Qing Wu, Jianmin Jiang, and YH Peng. Effective features based on normal linear structures for detecting microcalcifications in mammograms. In Pattern Recognition, 2008. ICPR 2008. 19th International Conference on, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng Xie and Lin Shang. Anomaly detection in crowded scenes using genetic programming. In Carlos A. Coello Coello, editor, Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 1832–1839, Beijing, China, 6–11 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengjie Zhang, Victor B Ciesielski, and Peter Andreae. A domain-independent window approach to multiclass object detection using genetic programming. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation for Signal Processing and Image Analysis, 8:841–859, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengjie Zhang, Mario Koeppen, and Sergio Damas. Special issue on computational intelligence in computer vision and image processing. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 8(1): 14–15, February 2013. Guest Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengjie Zhang and Malcolm Lett. Genetic programming for object detection: Improving fitness functions and optimising training data. The IEEE Intelligent Informatics Bulletin, 7(1):12–21, December 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin Zheng, Yuan-Hsiang Chang, Xiao-Hui Wang, Walter F Good, and David Gur. Feature selection for computerized mass detection in digitized mammograms by using a genetic algorithm. Academic radiology, 6(6):327–332, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark H Zweig and Gregory Campbell. Receiver-operating characteristic (roc) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical chemistry, 39(4):561–577, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Krzysztof Krawiec acknowledges support from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland) grant 09/91/DSPB/0572. The remaining authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Science Foundation Ireland, grand number 10/IN.1/I3031.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Conor Ryan, Jeannie Fitzgerald & David Medernach

  2. University of Poznań, Poznań, Poland

    Krzysztof Krawiec

Authors
  1. Conor Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeannie Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Krzysztof Krawiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Medernach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Conor Ryan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Amir H. Gandomi

  2. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Amir H. Alavi

  3. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Limerick, Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Conor Ryan

1 Electronic Supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ryan, C., Fitzgerald, J., Krawiec, K., Medernach, D. (2015). Image Classification with Genetic Programming: Building a Stage 1 Computer Aided Detector for Breast Cancer. In: Gandomi, A., Alavi, A., Ryan, C. (eds) Handbook of Genetic Programming Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20883-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20883-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20882-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20883-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation