A Semi-Supervised Fuzzy GrowCut Algorithm to
Segment and Classify Regions of Interest of
Mammographic Images

arXiv:1801.01443v1 [] 3 Dec 2017

Filipe R. Cordeiroa , Wellington P. Santosb,∗, Abel G. Silva-Filhoa
a Informatics
b Department

Center, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil
of Biomedical Engineering, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women. It is the second leading cause of death among
women round the world, becoming the most fatal form of cancer. Despite the
existence of several imaging techniques useful to aid at the diagnosis of breast
cancer, x-ray mammography is still the most used and effective imaging technology. Consequently, mammographic image segmentation is a fundamental task
to support image analysis and diagnosis, taking into account shape analysis of
mammary lesions and their borders. However, mammogram segmentation is a
very hard process, once it is highly dependent on the types of mammary tissues.
The GrowCut algorithm is a relatively new method to perform general image
segmentation based on the selection of just a few points inside and outside the region of interest, reaching good results at difficult segmentation cases when these
points are correctly selected. In this work we present a new semi-supervised
segmentation algorithm based on the modification of the GrowCut algorithm to
perform automatic mammographic image segmentation once a region of interest
is selected by a specialist. In our proposal, we used fuzzy Gaussian membership
functions to modify the evolution rule of the original GrowCut algorithm, in
order to estimate the uncertainty of a pixel being object or background. The
∗ Corresponding

author.
Email addresses: frc@cin.ufpe.br (Filipe R. Cordeiro), wellington.santos@ufpe.br
(Wellington P. Santos), agsf@cin.ufpe.br (Abel G. Silva-Filho)

Preprint submitted to Expert Systems with Applications

January 8, 2018

main impact of the proposed method is the significant reduction of expert effort
in the initialization of seed points of GrowCut to perform accurate segmentation, once it removes the need of selection of background seeds. Furthermore,
the proposed method is robust to wrong seed positioning and can be extended
to other seed based techniques. These characteristics have impact on expert
and intelligent systems, once it helps to develop a segmentation method with
lower required specialist knowledge, being robust and as efficient as state of the
art techniques. We also constructed an automatic point selection process based
on the simulated annealing optimization method, avoiding the need of human
intervention. The proposed approach was qualitatively compared with other
state-of-the-art segmentation techniques, considering the shape of segmented
regions. In order to validate our proposal, we built an image classifier using a
classical multilayer perceptron. We used Zernike moments to extract segmented
image features. This analysis employed 685 mammograms from IRMA breast
cancer database, using fat and fibroid tissues. Results show that the proposed
technique could achieve a classification rate of 91.28% for fat tissues, evidencing
the feasibility of our approach.
Keywords: breast cancer, mammographic image analysis, semi-supervised
image segmentation, GrowCut algorithm, fuzzy segmentation, simulated
annealing

1. Introduction
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide: the World
Health Organization (WHO) estimates the occurrence of 1.1 million new cases
each year (Mathers et al., 2008). Survival rates for breast cancer can vary from
80%, in high-income countries, to below 40% in low-income nations (Coleman
et al., 2008). The low survivability in some countries is related to the lack
of screening programs which assist in the early detection of cancers. Early
detection has an important impact on the successful treatment of cancer, once
medical treatment becomes harder in late stages. One of the most effective

2

methods for breast cancer analysis is digital mammography (Maitra et al., 2011).
However, mammography visual understanding and analysis can be a hard task
even to a specialist, once such a procedure can be affected by image quality
aspects, radiologist experience, and tumor shape.
A realistic estimative of the period that comprises the beginning of the tumor and its growth until it becomes palpable, reaching around 1 cm, is about
10 years (Allred et al., 1998). During this period, breast imaging is essential for
tumor monitoring. Correct evaluation of tumor size takes an important role at
planning breast cancer treatments and avoiding mutilating surgeries, e.g. mastectomy (Litière et al., 2012). Nevertheless, imaging devices used by the BMH
(Brazilian Ministry of Health) (Costa et al., 2004) for the detection of breast
cancer, which involve manual identification of the nodule size, are quite inefficient at the evaluation. These methods depend substantially on the professional
examiners experience (Costa et al., 2004) . Furthermore, image diagnosis is a
complex task due to the large variability of clinical cases. Many cases seen in
clinic practice do not fit classic images and descriptions precisely (Juhl et al.,
2000). For these reasons, mammography computer aided diagnosis (CAD) has
been playing an import role to assist radiologists in improving the accuracy of
their diagnosis. Consequently, traditional techniques in image processing have
been applied in the medical field to make diagnosis less susceptible to errors
through accurate identification of anatomic anomalies (Da-xi et al., 2010)(Ye
et al., 2010).
The shape of the segmented tumor is a determinant factor in the mammogram diagnosis. It is related to the gravity of the tumor and the difference of
a few centimeters in the maximum diameter can determine if it is necessary
do a surgery or not. However, it can be very difficult to detect the contour of
the tumor accurately depending on several factors, such as shape of the tumor,
density, size, location and image quality. Some challenges in tumor segmentation include low contrast images, intensity levels which vary greatly across
different regions, poor illumination and high noise levels, non-defined contours,
and masses which are not always obviously detected (Raman et al., 2011).
3

The GrowCut algorithm is a relatively new method to perform general image
segmentation based on the selection of just a few points inside and outside the
region of interest, reaching good results at difficult segmentation cases when
these points are adequately selected 1.
In this work we present a new semi-supervised segmentation algorithm based
on the modification of the GrowCut algorithm to perform semi-automatic mammography image segmentation. In our proposal, we used fuzzy Gaussian membership functions to modify the evolution rule of the original GrowCut algorithm, in order to estimate the uncertainty of a pixel being object or background.
Once point selection can be considered an important disadvantage of GrowCut,
we also constructed an automatic point selection process based on the simulated annealing optimization method, avoiding the need of human intervention.
The proposed approach was qualitatively compared with other state-of-the-art
segmentation techniques, considering the shape of segmented regions. In order
to validate our proposal, we built an image classifier using a classical multilayer
perceptron. We used Zernike moments to extract segmented image features.
This analysis employed 685 mammograms from IRMA breast cancer database,
using fat and fibroid tissues.
This work has impact in the context of expert systems once it turns an
expert system less dependent on the user knowledge, besides turning the process
more robust to incorrect initialization. Moreover, the proposed method can be
extended and applied to other expert systems, in other areas of application.
This work is organized as following: in section 2 we present the related work;
in section 3 we present our segmentation proposal based on the modification of
GrowCut algorithm using fuzzy Gaussian membership functions and the classical simulated annealing algorithm; in section 5 we present our experimental
qualitative and quantitative results and perform some comments; finally, in section 7 we present general conclusions and some perspectives of future works.

4

2. Related Works
Recent works have provided good accuracy in identifying the location of tumors (Liu et al., 2011)(Mohamed et al., 2009), however relatively little research
has been done to verify the quality of segmentation. Oliver et al. (2010) makes
a review of state of art and shows that related works are divided into edge-based
segmentation, region-based segmentation and adaptive threshold.
In edge-based segmentation, it is difficult to determine the boundary of the
tumor due to some ill-defined edges lesions. Region-based segmentation are
more suitable for mass detection, since regions of tumor are usually brighter than
their surrounding tissue, have an almost uniform density and a fuzzy boundary
(Raman et al., 2011).
Recent studies for tumor segmentation have been successfully applied to
region-based techniques for tumor segmentation. Lewis and Dong (2012) uses
Watershed to automatically segment tumor candidate regions, achieving an
overall detection rate for mass tumors of 90%. However, the metric of analysis that was used was based only on the location of the tumor and not on the
quality of segmentation.
Eltoukhy and Faye (2013) use an adaptive threshold technique, achieving
100% sensitivity, with an average of 1.87 false positives, when applied to 188
images. However, the value of sensitivity varies depending on the false positive
rate, and each work uses a different rate.
Suspect regions usually are brighter than neighbor regions and with a uniform density (Hong and Sohn, 2010). However, usually lesion regions do not have
a well-defined contour. Due to this fact, seed-based techniques, i.e. techniques
in which users label the initial seeds, show a better quality in the final segmentation. GrowCut technique has been applied to successful segment medical
images, such as kidney (Dai et al., 2013), brain (Yamasaki et al., 2012) and vertebral body segmentation (Egger et al., 2013). Cordeiro et al. (2012) apply the
classical GrowCut to segment masses in mammograms, obtaining good results
in terms of quality of segmentation. Zheng et al. (2013) employ a random-walk

5

based segmentation, which also uses seeds provided by the user, to achieve a
good segmentation. However, they do not provide a quantitative analysis of
the results. Despite seed based techniques have shown suitable performance for
mass segmentation, they require a high level of specialist knowledge about the
problem in order to select these seeds.
Unsupervised and Semi-Supervised techniques try to reduce the required
specialist knowledge about the tumor region. Ghosh et al. (2011) proposes an
unsupervised GrowCut applied to medical images, but it is used for clustering
and not for specific segmentation. Ramathi et. al use Active Contours (Rahmati
et al., 2012) to segment masses, achieving 86.85% of accuracy using an overlap
measure between segment images and ground truth. Chakraborty et al. apply
Multilevel threshold (Chakraborty et al., 2012) combined with region growing
to perform segmentation for well-defined edge contours, but both techniques
show difficulties in defining spiculated contours or ill-defined edges. Hao et al.
(2012) attempt an automated seed generation combining isocontour maps with
random walks and active contours, achieving high accuracy for the metric of
area overlap measure. However, this metric alone does not reflect precisely the
quality of segmentation.
Al-Najdawi et al. (2015) et. al proposes an image visual enhancement and
mass segmentation, obtaining tumor classification accuracy of 90.7%. However,
the segmentation step is mainly based on thresholding, which does not guarantee correct segmentation for ill-defined edges, even with image enhancement.
Dong et al. (2015) proposes and automated for mass segmentation, using active
contours to perform the segmentation. Nevertheless, it uses the information
provided by the database to identify the location of the mass, which does not
happens in practice. Xie et al. (2016) use a Pulse Coupled Neural Network
algorithm to obtain a scheme for correct initialization for level set evolution.
However, the work does not explore the limitation of the algorithm to wrong
initialization, once the level set segmentation depends on that. Although it
improves the level set segmentation, the algorithm is still dependent of a good
initialization.
6

As described previously, most of recent work in literature which are based on
seeds selection are dependent on correct initialization in order to the algorithm
perform accurately. But a correct seed positioning requires high user knowledge
about the problem, to the most complex images. Although new methods with a
high segmentation accuracy have been proposed, they are still high dependent
on the user knowledge to obtain good results. The unsupervised methods proposed in literature have two main approaches: obtaining an automatic threshold
value to perform the segmentation or generating the seeds automatically. The
methods based on a threshold may have difficulties to perform segmentation in
more complex images, with ill-defined edges. The techniques based on automatic seeding must guarantee that all the seeds are correctly positioned. The
proposed method contributes and differs from state of art techniques by reducing the knowledge necessary to perform segmentation, using as case of study the
GrowCut technique. The proposed techniques eliminate the need of selecting
background seeds and makes the method more robust to wrong initialization.
This has an impact of using unsupervised segmentation methods easier and
more tolerant to different initializations. Furthermore, the proposed approach
can be extended to other techniques and other kind of image.
As observed by Raman et al. (Raman et al., 2011), related works results
differ significantly, and are often based on visual subjective opinion with very
little quantitative endorsement. Furthermore, most studies describe an accuracy
of the techniques based only on the localization of the tumor and not on its
shape and contour, though these characteristics are very important for accurate
diagnoses. Herein this work we propose a new approach based on automatic
selection of seeds, making comparisons between our proposal and other stateof-the-art techniques, analyzing the quality of segmentation of each technique.

3. Methods
In terms of the methodology, the segmentation can be thought of a process
which consists of two tasks: the localization of the anatomy of interest and

7

its delineation. The proposed methodology aims to provide assistance to the
specialist to find an accurate delineation of the mass. Therefore, it assumed
that a region of interest was previously selected by a specialist and provided
to the proposed system to perform a high quality segmentation. Therefore,
the objective of the proposed method is not to segment the mass from a full
mammogram, but to help the professional to identify the correct measure of
the mass. Once the region on interest (ROI) is used as input, the segmentation
task is performed automatically. The method is called semi-supervised because
of the need of selection of the region of interest by a specialist. But once the
ROI is given as input to the proposed system, the segmentation is performed
automatically.
The flowchart of Figure 1 illustrates the proposed method.
Proposed System
Region of
Interest

Segmented
Image

Automatic
Seeds Selection

ROI
Patch
Database

Proposed
Segmentation
Model

Input
(selected by a specialist)

Feature
Extraction
using
Zernike
Moments

Output

MLP
Classification
Benign

Malignant

Output

Figure 1: Flowchart of the proposed method.

The methodology starts from an initial region of interest that corresponds
to a previous selection made by a specialist or performed by a computational
algorithm. In this work, ROIs are provided by the IRMA (Deserno et al., 2011)
database, which contains patches of the suspicious image regions. After this,
automatic selection of seeds is performed using Simulated Annealing (Dowsland
and Thompson, 2012), which models the localization of seed in an optimization
problem, in which the objectives are to maximize the intensity of seed pixels and
minimize the distance between them. After the seed pixels are obtained, they
are used as inputs to the proposed segmentation model, in order to generate the
segmented image. Therefore, once given a region of interest, the segmentation
process is performed automatically. As the IRMA database does not provide the

8

ground truth of the images of interest, we decided to use a classifier to validate
the segmentation through the identification of the segmented images based on
their shape and edge characteristics. If the classifier is able to identify the type
of tumor of segmented images accurately, we consider the segmentation suitable
enough for the problem. Therefore, after the segmented images are obtained,
the feature selection stage starts. In this stage, the proposed feature extractor
calculates attributes related to shape and margin of the segmented regions using the Zernike Moments. Subsequently, a classifier is applied to identify the
segmented images as benign or malignant tumors. After the classification step,
we perform the analysis of results.
3.1. Proposed Segmentation Model
The proposed model is based on the GrowCut (Vezhnevets and Konouchine, 2005) algorithm, a user interactive approach employed to perform image
processing tasks, such as noise reduction and morphological and edge detection.
GrowCut is a technique based on cellular automata (Hernandez and Herrmann,
1996), represented by grids of cells, where each cell can assume a finite number
of states, which can vary according to the neighborhood rules. The neighborhood consists of a selection of neighbor pixels of a determined image, and can
be defined by using Neumann and Moore neighborhood models (Nayak et al.,
2014), for example. All the cells update their states according to the same update rule, based on the values of neighbor cells. Each time a rule is applied to
a grid, a new iteration begins.
The GrowCut technique, as a user-interactive based approach, uses the concept of a seed pixel, in which the user initially labels a set of pixels in different
classes of interest and, based on these seeds, the algorithm tries to label all the
pixels of the image. In GrowCut, each cell has a strength value and, at each
iteration, the neighbor cells try to dominate this specific cell, changing its label.
If a defender cell has a higher strength than its dominators, then it continues
with the same label. Otherwise, the specific cell inherits the dominators’ cell
label. The process continues until the algorithm reaches convergence and all
9

the cells stop changing their states. The pseudo-code of GrowCut is described
in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 GrowCut evolution rule
1:

for all p ∈ P do

2:

lpt+1 ← lpt

3:

Θt+1
← Θtp
p

4:

for all q ∈ N (p) do

5:

if g( C~p − C~q

2

) · Θtq > Θtp then

6:

lpt+1 ← lqt

7:

← g( C~p − C~q
Θt+1
p

8:
9:
10:

2

) · Θtq

end if
end for
end for
According to the Algorithm 1, for each cell p in a P space of cells, previous

states are copied, updating the label value of cell p in iteration t+1, represented
as lpt+1 , and the strength value of cell p in iteration t+1, as Θt+1
p . Next, for each
cell q belonging to a neighbor of cell p, represented as N(p), the update label
condition is checked. In the condition of line 5, C~p and C~q are intensity vectors
of the pixels p and q in the gray-scale space of colors, respectively, and Θtq and
Θtp are values of strength of cells q and p in iteration t. Function g, in lines 5
and 7, is a decreasing monotonic function, represented by Equation 1.

g(x) =

1

(1)

~
max C
2

Finally, label and strength of cells are updated if the domination rule is
satisfied, and the process repeats until the algorithm converges.
In GrowCut, as in the majority of seed-based techniques, the quality of
segmentation depends directly on the positions of the initial seeds. Therefore, it
depends on the user’s knowledge to select appropriately seeds next to the edge of
the object to be segmented. In the case in which some seeds are initially labeled

10

incorrectly, the algorithm may perform an undesired and poor segmentation.
The proposed model aims to reduce the need for initial knowledge about the
contour of the object, besides reducing the effort of selection of seeds. Moreover, the proposed model aims to be fault tolerant, allowing it to recover from
incorrect seed selection.
In GrowCut all the initial seeds selected by the user have maximum strength
value, assigning a high weight to the seeds with incorrect labels. Unlike GrowCut, the proposed model is based on the selection of seeds of only one class: the
object of interest. The traditional GrowCut only works with two classes, and
if the background class is not close to the edges of tumor it does not provide
a good segmentation, as described by Cordeiro et al. (Cordeiro et al., 2012).
In our approach, we discard the selection of a background class because, from
the seeds of object class, we can estimate a frontier region separating object
and background. However, instead of assigning all the labeled cells with maximum strength, all the cells are initialized with zero strength, except the cell
corresponding to the center of mass of input seeds. Consequently, we assign
maximum value to the cell of center of mass because we assume that it has a
higher chance of having a correct label. The initialization is performed using
the following Equation 2.

∀p ∈ P, lp = 0, Θp = 0, lcm = lob , Θcm = 1;

(2)

where p is a cell in space P of cells, and lp and Θp are the labels and strengths
of cell p, respectively. The label and strength of the cell which corresponds to
the center of mass of the seeds are represented by lc m and Θc m, respectively.
The proposed model makes a modification in the update rule of the cells of
GrowCut, in a way that the attack of each cell is based in a region modeled by a
Gaussian function. The strength of the model will be equal to 1 if the degree of
membership of the specific cell to the background is higher than its complement,
i.e. the degree of membership of the specific cell to the object of interest.
Otherwise, the strength of the model assumes the strength of the current cell.

11

The update algorithm of the proposed method is shown in Algorithm 2.
Algorithm 2 Proposed Algorithm evolution rule
1:

for all p ∈ P do

2:

lpt+1 ← lpt

3:

Θt+1
← Θtp
p

4:

Calculate ΘtM,p

5:

for all q ∈ N (p) do

6:

Calculate ΘtM,q

7:

if g( C~p − C~q

2

) · ΘtM,q > ΘtM,p then

8:

t
Calculate lM,p,q

9:

t
lpt+1 ← lM,p,q

Θt+1
← g( C~p − C~q
p

10:
11:
12:
13:

2

) · ΘtM,q

end if
end for
end for
In Algorithm 2, ΘtM,p and ΘtM,q are the strengths of the model for the cells

p and q, respectively, being represented by Equations 3 to 5.

ΘM,i


 1,
=
 Θ,
i

µBkg (i) > µObj (i)

,

(3)

µBkg (i) ≤ µObj (i)

µBkg (i) = 1 − µObj (i),

(4)





(xi − xm )2
(yi − ym )2
µObj (i) = exp −
exp
−
,
2αx s2x
2αy s2y

(5)

where µBkg (i) is the the fuzzy membership degree associated to the uncertainty
of the i-th cell belongs to the image background, whilst µObj (i) is the the fuzzy
membership degree associated to the uncertainty of the i-th belongs to the
object of interest. These fuzzy membership functions are Gaussian functions
whose variables xi and yi correspond to the coordinates of the i-th cell in the
grid, whereas xm and ym are the coordinates of the center of mass for the
12

initially selected seeds; sx and sy are the standard deviation of initial points,
whilst αx and αy are the weights of tuning of the Gaussian function, empirically
determined according to the problem of interest.
The label of each q-th cell, lM,p,q , is updated according to the following
expression of Equation 6
lM,p,q


 l ,
p
=
 l ,
q

µBkg (q) > µObj (q)

.

(6)

µBkg (q) ≤ µObj (q)

Table 1 makes a comparison between the GrowCut algorithm and the proposed model.
Table 1: Comparison between GrowCut and the Proposed Algorithm.
Characteristic

GrowCut

Proposed Model

Selection of Seeds

Selection of seeds of object class

Selection of seed only of object

and background class.

class.

All the seeds have strength value

Only the cell corresponding to

equal to 1.

the center of mass of points has

Initialization

strength value equal to 1.
Segmentation

Based on knowledge of seeds lo-

Based on knowledge of seeds; lo-

calization provided by the user.

calization and in the Gaussian
model that separates the region
of foreground and background
region.

Fault Tolerance to

Low

High

seeds localization

The initial impact of the proposed approach is the reduction of the effort
to select the initial seeds, in which it is necessary to use only the seeds of the
object of interest. The background region is obtained through the Gaussian
model, regulating the strength of each cell in the update labeling process. The
Gaussian model allows the process to be tolerant to incorrect selection of initial
seeds, once it is based on the center of mass of the seeds. Consequently, the
algorithm becomes less dependent on the user specialist knowledge, being more
appropriate for the process of semi-supervised seed selection.
13

3.2. Automatic Selection of Seeds
The selection of seeds consists of identifying initial pixels located in regions of
tumor and non-tumor. In many seed-based techniques, such as Random Walks
(Grady, 2006) and Graph Cut (Vicente et al., 2008), seeds are selected manually
by a specialist. In this work, the technique Simulated Annealing (Dowsland
and Thompson, 2012) is used to automatically find the seeds in the region of
interest. As usually, mass regions have higher intensity pixel values. Therefore,
the problem of finding a set of seeds was converted into an optimization problem,
where the algorithm optimizes the set of seeds by the intensity values, aiming
to get the seed inside the mass areas. As the Simulated Annealing is a validated
optimization algorithm, it is used to find a set of seeds, trying to minimize the
fitness function described by equation 7:

f itness = α

n−1
X

djn − β

j=1

n
X

Ij ,

(7)

j=1

where djn is the Euclidian distance between seed j and seed n, and Ij is the
intensity value of seed j. Hence, the fitness function evaluates the intensity levels
of the set of seeds and the distance between them. As it is also important that
the seeds are spread throughout the region of interest, the distance between
points is evaluated in the fitness function. Parameters α and β are used to
adjust the impact of distance and intensity of the seeds, respectively. The
higher the value, the higher the influence of the distance of intensity in the
fitness function. However, we recommend the values to be between 1 and 2. For
the present application, we empirically defined the following standard values:
α = 1 and β = 1.5. An important aspect of the proposed algorithm is that it is
not necessary to select non-tumor seeds, once our algorithm can adjust its fuzzy
Gaussian frontier based only on the seeds of the tumor region.
Figure 2 illustrates the steps of the segmentation process for some images
of the database. Columns a and d of Figure 2 represents the initial region
of interest selected from the IRMA database. Columns b and e shows the
seed points obtained from automatic seeds selection, represented by the red

14

points, and the fuzzy Gaussian region, represented by red ellipses. Regions
inside ellipse have a higher probability of finding pixels of tumor mass. The
size of the Gaussian region is based on the location and distribution of the seed
points. The advantage of the proposed technique is that it requires only seeds
of the tumor region, different from most of techniques. Finally, columns c and
f shows the final segmentation of the proposed approach, represented by green
contours.
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 2: Segmentation process of the proposed approach for images of IRMA database. (a)
and (d) Original Images; (b) and (e) Automatic generated seeds and Fuzzy-Gaussian region;
(c) and (f) Final segmentations.

15

4. Experiments
4.1. Experimental Environment
Our proposal was evaluated using the IRMA (Deserno et al., 2011) (De Oliveira
et al., 2010) (Deserno et al., 2012) database, which was developed from a project
performed by Aachen University (RWTH Aachen). The database is composed
by regions of interest of mammograms, which were classified by radiologists
and resized to 128 × 128 pixels. The database is composed by 2.796 mammograms images of four repositories: 150 images from Mini-MIAS database
(Suckling et al., 1994), 2.576 images from DDSM (Heath et al., 2000), 1 from
LLN database, and 69 from RWTH database. The images from IRMA have four
types of tissue density, which are classified in four types, according to the classification of BI-RADS (D’Orsi, 1998): fat tissue (Type I), fibroid tissue (Type II),
heterogeneous dense tissue (Type III) and extremely dense tissue (Type IV). In
this work, we analyzed images of fat transparent and fibroid glands systems, for
masses classified as circumscribed, spiculated, and other mass, according to the
database description. For experimental evaluations, we used 685 mammography
patches, which corresponds to all images of fat and fibroid tissues which lesions
of type circumscribed, spiculated and other mass.
4.2. Feature Extraction
Feature extraction used in this work is based on the calculation of Zernike
Moments (Tahmasbi et al., 2011). The Zernike Moments are image descriptors
of shape and margin and invariant to rotation, non-redundant, and robust to
noise and shape (Wang et al., 2009)(Hwang and Kim, 2006), and they had
already been used successfully to identify masses by Tahmasbi et al. (Tahmasbi
et al., 2011).
The Zernike Moments are defined as projections of the intensity function of
an image, represented by f : S → W , over the orthogonal basis functions, which
are the Zernike polynomials. The calculation of Zernike Moments to a digital
image f is represented by Equation 8.

16

Zn,m =
√
where ρ =

n+1 X
f (u)Vn,m (ρ, θ),
π(N − 1)

(8)

u∈S

x2 +y 2
N

and θ = tan− 1(y/x). The variable n is a natural number

denominated moment order and m is a positive or negative integer, named
repetition, which satisfies the restriction n − |m| = pair, and |m| ≤ n. The
variable Vn,m is the Zernike polynomials family, defined by the Equation 9 and
Equation 10.
Vn,m (ρ, θ) = Rn,m (ρ)−jmθ ,
n−|m|
2

Rn,m =

X
s=0

(−1)s

(n − s)!
s!( n+|m|
2

− s)!( n−|m|
− s)!
2

(9)

ρn−2s .

(10)

To calculate the Zernike Moments of an image, its center is considered as a
center of an unitary disk. The Zernike Moments are divided in 64 descriptors,
which are divided in two groups of 32 elements, defined as low order and high
order moments.
4.3. Classification
In order to perform the classification of the suspicious regions of interest, we
used a classical Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) (Jain et al., 1996), which is an
extensively validated neural network based classifier. The inputs of the MLP
are the Zernike moments extracted from the segmented images. We employed
the following architecture: 64 inputs, two neurons in the output layer (benign
and malignant finding classes), and two hidden layers with 30 neurons each one.
Training and test stages were performed using k-fold cross-validation, with 10
folds. The classifier was used to indirectly evaluate the quality of segmentation
through the features of shape and margin extracted using Zernike moments.
4.4. Evaluation
We evaluate the quality of segmentation of the implemented techniques by
analyzing if the contour of the segmentation is well-defined enough to makes
17

possible the correct identification of the type of tumor using the MLP classifier. We chose this evaluation because the IRMA database does not provide the
segmentation ground truth. Furthermore, it would be unfeasible to a specialist
manually segment all the images. Additionally, if the contour of the segmentation is suitable enough to turns possible the classifier identify the type of
tumor, we can consider the segmentation has a good quality and is useful to be
employed in clinical practice.
Our proposal was compared to six state-of-the-art works: BEMD (Jai-Andaloussi
et al., 2013), BMCS (Berber et al., 2013), LBI (Sharma and Khanna, 2013),
MCW (Lewis and Dong, 2012), Topographic Approach (Hong and Sohn, 2010)
and Wavelet Analysis (Pereira et al., 2014). Each technique was implemented
using the parameters provided by each article. Although some works were used
for different databases and considering the full mammogram, the tuning was
based on the parameters suggest in each work.
A comparison with the classical GrowCut was not feasible due to necessity
of selection of seed points of 685 images, which the database does not provide
the ground truth. Furthermore, it is more suitable the comparison between
semi-supervised techniques, as evaluated in this work.

5. Results
This section shows the results of the state of the art techniques applied to
segment lesions of mammograms, from IRMA database, from fat transparent
and fibroid tissues, corresponding to 685 images divided into circumscribed,
spiculated and other mass. The proposed approach was compared with state of
the art techniques and the results of the segmentation of each technique were
evaluated through the metric described previously. Figure 3 shows the results
of segmentation of all techniques analyzed for the images of IRMA database.
Figure 3 shows 8 patches from IRMA database and the segmentation of
each analyzed technique. The region of interest from the database is shown in
column (a), where in the other columns the segmentation of each technique is

18

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 3: Comparison of segmentation of analyzed techniques.

(f)

(g)

(a) Region of Interest;

(b)Proposed Method; (c) Topographic; (d) Wavelet; (e) BEMD; (f) BMCS; (g) MCW.

represented in green. As can be observed, the proposed method and Topographic
approach obtained a well-defined segmentation for most of cases of Figure 3.
As described in the evaluation section, the segmented images of each technique were submitted to a classifier to identify the type of lesion according to
its features of shape and margin. The classifier used was a MLP, which classifies the region of interest in benign or malignant. The analysis was separated
according to the type of tissue and for each tissue it was divided analyzing two
scenarios: a)circumscribed and spiculated lesions and b) circumscribed, spiculated and other masses. The results of classification for each scenario described

19

are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Classification accuracy rate using the segmented images of the analyzed techniques,
for fat and fibroid tissue.
Fat Tissue

Fibroid Tissue

Techniques
circ.+spic.

circ.+spic.+other

circ.+spic.

circ.+spic.+other

BEMD

75.93±3.47%

BMCS

76.15±3.21%

75.32±3.60%

78.22±3.8%

75.64±3.11%

72.07±2.41%

85.50±4.42%

72.37±2.96%

MCW
Proprosed

69.52±3.49%

70.01±3.18%

86.17±3.47%

70.91±4.29%

85.83±5.67%

75.93±3.94%

84.30±1.95%

72.48±3.83%

Topographic

76.82±4.85%

77.00±4.15%

84.61±5.94%

76.81±4.61%

Wavelet

81.64±5.35%

75.48±5.51%

84.84±5.96%

76.32±5.97%

The boxplot of results showed in Table 2 is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Boxplot of the classification rate of the techniques analyzed.

As can be observed in Figure 4, the major difference of results between
techniques was in the first scenario, when using fat tissue and only circumscribed
and spiculated masses, where the proposed approach had higher classification
rate. To evaluate if the results were statistically different, it was performed a
hypothesis test. The hypothesis test was done using Student’s t-test (Samuels
et al., 2012), considering null hypothesis with equal population mean, using a
confidence level of 95%. The Student’s t-test was done comparing the results of
the proposed technique against the other ones. The results of this test is shown
in Table 3.

20

Table 3: P-value of Student’s t-test comparing the proposed approach with the analyzed
techniques.
Fat Tissue

Fibroid Tissue

Comparison
circ.+spic.

circ.+spic.+other

circ.+spic.

circ.+spic.+other

Topographic

1.4418E-08

0.3082

0.7908

0.0002

Wavelet

0.00469

0.7162

0.0067

0.0046

BEMD

1.3128E-10

0.5363

5.4451E-10

0.0068

BMCS

1.9458E-10

3.4508E-05

0.1830

0.9035

MCW

6.9151E-18

3.5855E-08

0.0131

0.1405

The bold values in Table 3 represent the situations in which the null hypothesis were rejected. This means that the proposed approach and the compared
technique are statistically different. For the other cases it means that they are
statistically similar.
Although most of the techniques obtained a good classification rate using
the Zernike moments to the segmented images, it is not guaranteed that the
edges of the segmented image are well defined. Therefore, another analysis was
done focusing on the quality of segmentation and the classification rate using
only the well segmented images. This does not invalidate the first analysis,
because results showed that the obtained segmentation is suitable for the correct
identification of tumors in benign or malignant, once it provides the contour
features necessary to classify the tumor. However, for a more specific analysis
about the quality of segmentation, it was separated the well segmented images
obtained for each technique. For this purpose, it was considered that a well
segmented image was that ones in which more than 50% of the edges were not
touching the edges of the region of interest. This decision was made because
it was assumed that it is necessary to have more than 50% of a well-defined
edge to be considered as a good segmentation. Based on this, the next analysis
evaluates the classification accuracy rate based only on the selected well-defined
segmentations. This aims to analyze the amount of images selected as good
segmentation for each technique and the classification rate for this selection.
The process of selection was performed automatically based on edges of the
21

tumor. The results for this analysis is showed in Table 4.
Table 4: Classification rate of the analyzed techniques, when using the segmented images with
a well-defined margin.
Fat Tissue
Technique

circ. + spic.
Classification

Selection

Fibroid Tissue

circ. + spic. + other
Classification

Rate

Selection

circ. + spic.
Classification

Rate

Selection

circ. + spic. + other
Classification

Rate

Selection

Rate

BEMD

-

20/152

-

46/345

-

13/198

-

23/340

BMCS

-

12/152

-

28/345

-

10/198

-

33/340

MCW

85.69±6.03%

78/152

86.12±4.23%

169/345

89.77±4.41%

81/198

90.11±3.44%

128/340

Proposed

91.28±2.96%

87/152

88.34±5.03%

186/345

89.27±4.12%

125/198

85.52±4.39%

211/340

Topographic

84.20±5.33%

143/152

83.49±4.34%

317/345

86.97±5.21%

185/198

81.56±6.35%

313/340

Wavelet

89.81±3.29%

67/152

90.16±3.83%

125/345

89.76±3.95%

55/198

90.60±4.13%

87/340

In Table 4, the BEMD and BMCS approaches do not have a classification
rate because the amount of selected images was too low to the classifier training
process. That means that few images of BEMD and BMCS had more than 50%
of the edges well defined.

6. Discussion
This work presents a methodology for delineating masses on ROIs of digital
mammograms, aiming to help the specialist in the identification of the lesion.
The delineation approach is based on a modification of the seeded region based
method GrowCut. In this modification the updated evolution rule employees
a fuzzy Gaussian membership function. This modification reduces the effort of
seeds selection, once only the foreground seeds are necessary to estimate the
region of the lesion. Furthermore, it facilitates the use of unsupervised methods
to select the seeds, as proposed in this work. In this section we discuss the
results showed previously, analyzing the performance of the algorithms and the
results obtained.
In Figure 3, the proposed technique, in column b, obtained a contour close
to the edges of the tumor for the images presented. The Topographic approach,
in column c, also obtained a good segmentation for most of cases, but it was
not so well defined in some cases, like in the first, second and last image, were
22

the segmentation was wrong. The Wavelet based approach, in column d did not
obtain a good segmentation for some cases where the contour was ill-defined.
The other techniques, in column e, f and g did not segment well for most of
the cases, segmenting the entire region of interest. The analysis was made for
the 685 images, but the examples shown in Figure 3 illustrates the quality of
segmentation of the proposed segmentation model.
Table 2 shows that the proposed approach achieves a higher accuracy when
using the classifier to classify the segmented images in benign or malignant,
applied to fat tissues and using circumscribed and spiculated masses. When
including also other masses, in the third column, the average of classification
is close to the Topographic and Wavelet approaches. For fibroid tissues, all
techniques, except BEMD, obtained similar performance when considering only
circumscribed and spiculated masses. With the addition of other masses for
fibroid tissue, the Topographic approach obtained higher result. Can also be
observed that not necessarily an algorithm that detect masses on fibroid tissue
has a higher performance compared to one that identifies masses in fat tissue.
For the cases analyzed, the MCW approach had a better performance for fibroid
tissue when compared to the proposed approach, whereas for fat tissue the
proposed approach had better results.
In Table 3, the results of second column means that for fat tissue, using only
circumscribed and spiculated masses, the proposed approach has statistically
different results when compared to the other techniques. Therefore, can be said
that the proposed technique obtained a high accuracy when used its segmented
images with the classifier. For fat tissue, including other masses, it was statistically different when compared to BMCS and MCW approaches. However,
it had no statistical evidence that it was different from Topographic, Wavelet
and BEMD approaches. This means that despite Topographic approach had
a higher average classification rate, it was not statistically different from the
proposed method. For fibroid tissue, the Wavelet based technique was statistically different, having higher slight higher accuracy when using circumscribed
and spiculated masses. When adding other masses, Topographic, Wavelet and
23

BEMD approach were statistically superior.
Table 4 shows the classification rate and the amount of selected images, for
each technique, for fat and fibroid tissues. The dataset for each technique is
the same, however it was performed a selection of images based on the quality
of segmentation. This is done because the objective is to evaluate the confidence level of each technique, showing a relation between the amount of well
segmented images and its accuracy for this set. If a technique has a high accuracy when using the classifier, this indicates that the quality of segmentation is
high. Therefore, if a technique has few well segmented images, but the classification rate is high, this means a high quality of segmentation and the confidence
level of its segmentation is high. On the other hand, if a technique has several
well segmented images, but the classification rate is low, the confidence level
of its segmentation is low. In the second column of Table 4, the proposed approach reaches 91.28% of classification rate, having 87 of 152 images considered
as having a well-defined contour, as showed in the third column of Table 4.
The Topographic approach, despite having a higher number of images selected,
it had a lower classification rate. Therefore, the analysis shows the relation
between the amount of well segmented images and the classification rate when
used only the images considered with well defined contour. From the first case of
fat tissue, the proposed approach had lower number of well segmented images,
but the classification rate shows that the quality of segmentation was better.
The second case, where the circumscribed, spiculated and other masses were
analyzed, for fat tissue, the Wavelet based approach had a higher classification
rate. However, the proposed approach had a close rate with a higher number
of well segmented images. For fibroid tissue the proposed and the Topographic
approach had a good tradeoff between classification rate and number of selected
images.
Experimental outcomes indicate that using the segmentation generated by
the proposed method will lead to a better classification rate for fat tissues.
This represents that the segmentation provided better characteristics to the
classifier distinguish between tumor and not tumor for this type of tissue. This
24

results also suggest that the quality of segmentation was better when using
Fuzzy GrowCut. One of the aspects that makes the Fuzzy GrowCut obtain
better segmentation results is that the method is less dependent on a correct
initialization when compared to state-of-art techniques. Therefore, even if the
unsupervised step of generation of seed is not perfect, the algorithm can provide
an accurate segmentation. Moreover, it does not rely on a threshold value, as
found in Topographic Approach and BMCS. The reduction of dependence on
initialization has high implications on segmentation tasks where user knowledge
is required, but not guaranteed that is correct. Furthermore, the proposed
method can be extended to other kind of medical images. This explanation was
added to the discussion section.
One of the main strengths of the proposed method is that it is flexible to
the seeds’ initialization. This happens because the propagation of seeds is based
on the center of mass of all seeds, and not on the seeds individually. With the
addition of a Fuzzy membership function, the segmentation process becomes
more flexible, different from state-of-art techniques which uses the seeds as reliable information. Therefore, besides reducing specialist knowledge necessary
to initialization and removing the need of selecting background seeds, it has as
consequence the reduction of weight related to the correct generation of seeds
in an unsupervised approach. In state of the art seed based techniques, such as
Random Walks, it is hard to adapt the method to an unsupervised approach,
once the automatic generation of seeds cannot contain incorrect labelling.
On the other hand, of the weakness of the proposed approach is that it
requires more computational time compared to state of the art techniques.

7. Conclusion
Herein this work we proposed a new approach to segment masses in digital
mammography images. This approach is based on a semi-supervised modification of GrowCut segmentation algorithm, using fuzzy Gaussian membership
functions in the new evolution rule. With such a fuzzy function we were able

25

to deal with complex non-defined tumor boundaries, as our qualitative results
demonstrate. In order to surpass GrowCut limitation of needing human intervention at selecting internal and external points to train the segmentation
method, we included a non-supervised previous stage with the ability to automatically select internal points using the classical simulated annealing algorithm. Our fuzzy approach avoids the need of selecting external points.
The proposed technique was evaluated with 685 images from the IRMA
database and compared with the following techniques: BEMD, BMCS, LBI,
MCW, Topographic Approach and Wavelet Analysis. The evaluation was done
applying the Zernike moments on the segmented images and using the MLP to
classify the images in benign or malignant. This estimates the quality of segmentation, since the database does not provided the ground truth. The evaluation
was performed for images of fat tissue and fibroid tissue, using circumscribed,
spiculated and other masses.
Results showed that the proposed approach had better results on average for
fat tissue, obtaining 85.83% of classification rate. We also employed Student’s ttest to identify differences among the several methods we implement, and results
pointed that our approach is significantly different from others in this scenario.
When including other masses, for fat tissue, the method we proposed can be
considered statistically equivalent to others. For fibroid tissue, the Wavelet and
Topographic approaches had a slightly higher classification rate. When analyzing the quality of segmented images, the proposed approach obtained 91.28% of
classification rate for fat tissue, having a good tradeoff between well segmented
images and classification rate. For fibroid tissues, the proposed approach had a
good balance between classification rate and well segmented images, equivalent
to the Topographic approach.
From these results, we can conclude that our semi-supervised modification
of GrowCut, with automatic seed selection using simulated annealing and altered evolution rule based on fuzzy Gaussian membership functions, is feasible
and suitable for breast tumor segmentation, mainly because it does not require
additional human intervention once suspicious lesion areas are already clinically
26

determined as input data in this application. Considering qualitative results,
our proposal was able to perform good lesion segmentation for circumscribed
and spiculated mammary lesions, having better qualitative segmentation than
the state-of-the-art techniques we implemented, considering fat mammary tissues.
This approach can be extended for other biomedical image applications
where fuzzy-boundaries objects have to be segmented. Regarding the computational effort, segmentation times could be minimized by using parallel architectures and strategies, due to the very parallel nature of the algorithms
we proposed and used in this hybrid method, for example, classical simulated
annealing and modified GrowCut.

8. Acknowledgments
The authors thank to the courtesy of Prof. Thomas Deserno, from the
Department of Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Germany, which
kindly provided access to the IRMA dataset.

References
Al-Najdawi, N., Biltawi, M., Tedmori, S., 2015. Mammogram image visual enhancement, mass segmentation and classification. Applied Soft Computing
35, 175–185.
Allred, D., Harvey, J. M., Berardo, M., Clark, G. M., 1998. Prognostic and
predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Modern
pathology: an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of
Pathology, Inc 11 (2), 155–168.
Berber, T., Alpkocak, A., Balci, P., Dicle, O., 2013. Breast mass contour segmentation algorithm in digital mammograms. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 110 (2), 150–159.

27

Chakraborty, J., Mukhopadhyay, S., Singla, V., Khandelwal, N., Rangayyan,
R. M., 2012. Detection of masses in mammograms using region growing
controlled by multilevel thresholding. In: Computer-Based Medical Systems
(CBMS), 2012 25th International Symposium on. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Coleman, M. P., Quaresma, M., Berrino, F., Lutz, J.-M., De Angelis, R., Capocaccia, R., Baili, P., Rachet, B., Gatta, G., Hakulinen, T., et al., 2008. Cancer
survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (concord).
The lancet oncology 9 (8), 730–756.
Cordeiro, F. R., Santos, W. P., Silva-Filho, A. G., 2012. Segmentation of mammography by applying growcut for mass detection. Studies in health technology and informatics 192, 87–91.
Costa, C. R. A., Gomes, F. M. P., Silva, R. M., 2004. Controle do Câncer de
Mama: Documento de Consenso. Ministério da Saúde, Brasília.
Da-xi, W., Yuan, F., Sheng, H., 2010. An algorithm for medical imaging identification based on edge detection and seed filling. In: 2010 International
Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling (ICCASM 2010).
Vol. 15. pp. 547–548.
Dai, G.-Y., Li, Z.-C., Gu, J., Wang, L., Li, X.-M., Sept 2013. Segmentation
of kidneys from computed tomography using 3d fast growcut algorithm. In:
Image Processing (ICIP), 2013 20th IEEE International Conference on. pp.
1144–1147.
De Oliveira, J. E., Machado, A., Chavez, G. C., Lopes, A. P. B., Deserno,
T. M., Araújo, A. d. A., 2010. Mammosys: A content-based image retrieval
system using breast density patterns. Computer methods and programs in
biomedicine 99 (3), 289–297.
Deserno, T. M., Soiron, M., de Oliveira, J. E., Araújo, A. d. A., 2012. Computeraided diagnostics of screening mammography using content-based image re-

28

trieval. In: SPIE Medical Imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 831527–831527.
Deserno, T. M., Soiron, M., de Oliveira, J. E. E., de A Araujo, A., 2011. Towards
computer-aided diagnostics of screening mammography using content-based
image retrieval. In: Graphics, Patterns and Images (Sibgrapi), 2011 24th
SIBGRAPI Conference on. IEEE, pp. 211–219.
Dong, M., Lu, X., Ma, Y., Guo, Y., Ma, Y., Wang, K., 2015. An efficient approach for automated mass segmentation and classification in mammograms.
Journal of digital imaging 28 (5), 613–625.
D’Orsi, C. J., 1998. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).
American College of Radiology.
Dowsland, K. A., Thompson, J. M., 2012. Simulated annealing. In: Handbook
of Natural Computing. Springer, pp. 1623–1655.
Egger, J., Kappus, C., Carl, B., Nimsky, C., 2013. Growcut-based vertebral
body segmentation with 3d slicer. Jahrestagung der Sektion Wirbelsäule der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC), Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Poster 24.
Eltoukhy, M., Faye, I., Oct 2013. An adaptive threshold method for mass detection in mammographic images. In: Signal and Image Processing Applications
(ICSIPA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. pp. 374–378.
Ghosh, P., Antani, S. K., Long, L. R., Thoma, G. R., 2011. Unsupervised growcut: Cellular automata-based medical image segmentation. In: Healthcare
Informatics, Imaging and Systems Biology (HISB), 2011 First IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 40–47.
Grady, L., 2006. Random walks for image segmentation. Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 28 (11), 1768–1783.

29

Hao, X., Shen, Y., Xia, S.-r., 2012. Automatic mass segmentation on mammograms combining random walks and active contour. Journal of Zhejiang
University SCIENCE C 13 (9), 635–648.
Heath, M., Bowyer, K., Kopans, D., Moore, R., Kegelmeyer, P., 2000. The
digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography. Citeseer, pp. 212–218.
Hernandez, G., Herrmann, H. J., 1996. Cellular automata for elementary image
enhancement. Graphical Models and Image Processing 58 (1), 82–89.
Hong, B.-W., Sohn, B.-S., Jan 2010. Segmentation of regions of interest in mammograms in a topographic approach. Information Technology in Biomedicine,
IEEE Transactions on 14 (1), 129–139.
Hwang, S.-K., Kim, W.-Y., 2006. A novel approach to the fast computation of
zernike moments. Pattern Recognition 39 (11), 2065–2076.
Jai-Andaloussi, S., Sekkaki, A., Quellec, G., Lamard, M., Cazuguel, G., Roux,
C., 2013. Mass segmentation in mammograms by using bidimensional emperical mode decomposition bemd. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society (EMBC), 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE.
IEEE, pp. 5441–5444.
Jain, A. K., Mao, J., Mohiuddin, K., 1996. Artificial neural networks: A tutorial.
Computer 29 (3), 31–44.
Juhl, J. H., Crummy, A. B., Kuhlman, J. E., 2000. Interpretação radiológica.
Interpretação radiológica.
Lewis, S. H., Dong, A., 2012. Detection of breast tumor candidates using markercontrolled watershed segmentation and morphological analysis. In: Image
Analysis and Interpretation (SSIAI), 2012 IEEE Southwest Symposium on.
IEEE, pp. 1–4.

30

Litière, S., Werutsky, G., Fentiman, I. S., Rutgers, E., Christiaens, M.-R.,
Van Limbergen, E., Baaijens, M. H., Bogaerts, J., Bartelink, H., 2012. Breast
conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage i–ii breast cancer: 20 year
follow-up of the eortc 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. The lancet oncology
13 (4), 412–419.
Liu, X., Xu, X., Liu, J., Feng, Z., 2011. A new automatic method for mass
detection in mammography with false positives reduction by supported vector machine. In: Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI), 2011 4th
International Conference on. Vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 33–37.
Maitra, I. K., Nag, S., Bandyopadhyay, S. K., 2011. Identification of abnormal
masses in digital mammography images. International Journal of Computer
Graphics 2 (1), 17–30.
Mathers, C., Fat, D. M., Boerma, J., 2008. The global burden of disease: 2004
update. World Health Organization.
Mohamed, S., Behiels, G., Dewaele, P., 2009. Mass candidate detection and
segmentation in digitized mammograms. In: Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009 IEEE Toronto International Conference. IEEE, pp.
557–562.
Nayak, D. R., Patra, P. K., Mahapatra, A., 2014. A survey on two dimensional
cellular automata and its application in image processing. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1407.7626.
Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Marti, J., Perez, E., Pont, J., Denton, E. R., Zwiggelaar, R., 2010. A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in
mammographic images. Medical Image Analysis 14 (2), 87–110.
Pereira, D. C., Ramos, R. P., Do Nascimento, M. Z., 2014. Segmentation and
detection of breast cancer in mammograms combining wavelet analysis and
genetic algorithm. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 114 (1),
88–101.
31

Rahmati, P., Adler, A., Hamarneh, G., 2012. Mammography segmentation with
maximum likelihood active contours. Medical image analysis 16 (6), 1167–
1186.
Raman, V., Sumari, P., Then, H., Al-Omari, S. A. K., 2011. Review on mammogram mass detection by machine learning techniques. International Journal
of Computer and Electrical Engineering 3 (6), 873–879.
Samuels, M. L., Witmer, J. A., Schaffner, A., 2012. Statistics for the life sciences.
Pearson education.
Sharma, S., Khanna, P., 2013. Roi segmentation using local binary image. In:
Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 136–141.
Suckling, J., Parker, J., Dance, D. R., Astley, S., Hutt, I., Boggis, C., Ricketts, I., Stamatakis, E., Cerneaz, N., Kok, S.-L., Taylor, P., Betal, D., Savage, J., 1994. The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram
database. In: et al, A. G. G. (Ed.), Digital Mammography. Excerta Medica,
pp. 375–378.
Tahmasbi, A., Saki, F., Shokouhi, S. B., 2011. Classification of benign and malignant masses based on zernike moments. Computers in Biology and Medicine
41 (8), 726–735.
Vezhnevets, V., Konouchine, V., 2005. Growcut: Interactive multi-label nd image segmentation by cellular automata. In: proc. of Graphicon. pp. 150–156.
Vicente, S., Kolmogorov, V., Rother, C., 2008. Graph cut based image segmentation with connectivity priors. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2008. CVPR 2008. IEEE Conference on. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Wang, W., Mottershead, J. E., Mares, C., 2009. Mode-shape recognition and finite element model updating using the zernike moment descriptor. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 23 (7), 2088–2112.

32

Xie, W., Li, Y., Ma, Y., 2016. Pcnn-based level set method of automatic mammographic image segmentation. Optik-International Journal for Light and
Electron Optics 127 (4), 1644–1650.
Yamasaki, T., Chen, T., Yagi, M., Hirai, T., Mrakami, R., 2012. Comparative
study in interactive seed generation for growcut-based fast 3d mri segmentation. Signal & Information Processing Association Annual Submmit and
Conference, 1–4.
Ye, S., Zheng, S., Hao, W., 2010. Medical image edge detection method based
on adaptive facet model. In: Computer Application and System Modeling
(ICCASM), 2010 International Conference on. Vol. 3. IEEE, pp. V3–574.
Zheng, S.-W., Liu, J., Liu, C.-C., 2013. A random-walk based breast tumors segmentation algorithm for mammograms. International Journal on Computer,
Consumer and Control (IJ3C) 2 (2), 66–74.

33

