Density-Wise Two Stage Mammogram Classification
using Texture Exploiting Descriptors✩

arXiv:1701.04010v4 [] 3 Jan 2018

Aditya A. Shastria , Deepti Tamrakara, Kapil Ahujaa,∗
a Computer

Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Simrol, Indore,
MP 453552, India

Abstract
Breast cancer is becoming pervasive with each passing day. Hence, its early
detection is a big step in saving the life of any patient. Mammography is a
common tool in breast cancer diagnosis. The most important step here is
classification
of
mammogram
patches
as
normal-abnormal and
benign-malignant.
Texture of a breast in a mammogram patch plays a significant role in these
classifications. We propose a variation of Histogram of Gradients (HOG) and
Gabor filter combination called Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT) that
exploits this fact. We also revisit the Pass Band - Discrete Cosine Transform
(PB-DCT) descriptor that captures texture information well. All features of
a mammogram patch may not be useful. Hence, we apply a feature selection
technique called Discrimination Potentiality (DP). Our resulting descriptors,
DP-HOT and DP-PB-DCT, are compared with the standard descriptors.
Density of a mammogram patch is important for classification, and has not
been studied exhaustively. The Image Retrieval in Medical Application
(IRMA) database from RWTH Aachen, Germany is a standard database that
provides mammogram patches, and most researchers have tested their
frameworks only on a subset of patches from this database. We apply our two
new descriptors on all images of the IRMA database for density wise
classification, and compare with the standard descriptors. We achieve higher
accuracy than all of the existing standard descriptors (more than 92%).
Keywords: Mammogram, Gabor Filter, Histogram of Gradients, Discrete
Cosine Transform, Feature Selection.

✩ This material is based upon work supported by Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (India) Grant Number 25/(0220)/13/EMR-II.
∗ Corresponding author
Email addresses: phd1501201001@iiti.ac.in (Aditya A. Shastri), deeptitm@iiti.ac.in
(Deepti Tamrakar), kahuja@iiti.ac.in (Kapil Ahuja)
URL: http://iiti.ac.in/people/~kahuja/ (Kapil Ahuja)

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

January 4, 2018

1. Introduction
Breast cancer has become the most common killer disease in the female
population. Collectively India, China and US have almost one-third burden of
global breast cancer (Shah, 2016). The abnormalities like the existence of a
breast mass, change in shape, the dimension of the breast, differences in the
color of the breast skin, breast aches, etc., are the symptoms of breast cancer.
Cancer diagnosis is performed based upon non-molecular criteria like the tissue
type, pathological properties and the clinical location. Cancer begins with the
uncontrolled division of one cell and results in the form of a tumor.
There are several imaging techniques for examination of the breast, such as
magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound imaging, X-ray imaging, etc.
Mammography is the most effective tool for early detection of breast cancer
that uses a low-dose X-ray radiation. It can reveal pronounce evidence of
abnormalities, such as masses and calcification, as well as subtle signs, such as
bilateral asymmetry and architectural distortion. The diagnosis of breast
cancer by classifying it as benign and malignant in the early stage can reduce
chances of the death of the patient.
Mammographic Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) systems enable
evaluation of abnormalities (e.g., micro-calcification, masses, and distortions)
in mammography images. CAD systems are necessary to aid facilities in
carrying out a more accurate diagnosis. CAD systems are designed with either
fully automatic or semi-automatic tools to assist radiologists for detection and
classification of mammography abnormalities (Oliver et al., 2010).
In
semi-automated CAD systems, enhancement techniques are first applied on a
mammogram patch, radiologists then select a Region of Interest (ROI) or a
patch, and finally, the patch is classified by the system.
Mammogram patch classification is often done in one stage. However,
classifying a mammogram patch in multiple stages is also beneficial.
Two-stage classification of mammogram patches helps in reducing the
possibility of a false positive classification. In the first stage, mammogram
patches are classified as normal or abnormal (mass), then in the second stage,
abnormal patches are further classified into benign or malignant. This work
proposes two-stage mammogram patch classification. The system is trained
with normal, benign and malignant mammogram patches separately.
Generally, CAD systems consist of basic modules as follows: mammogram
patch pre-processing, breast segmentation, enhancement, feature extraction
and classification (Rangayyan et al., 2007). Pre-processing step helps in
removal of irrelevant regions present in a mammogram patch such as pectoral
muscles and digit information. Breast region is segmented using a threshold.
Enhancement techniques such as adaptive histogram equalization, non-linear
filtering are applied on the breast region to improve visualization of tissues or
a tumor in a mammogram patch (Anand & Gayathri, 2015; Sundaram et al.,
2011; Jenifer et al., 2016). In most works, shape features of a mammogram
patch have only been considered. The shape of a mammogram patch plays an
important role for benign and malignant classification. While benign masses
2

have round or oval shapes with clear margins, malignant masses with spicule
have jagged edges (Mudigonda et al., 2000).
Appropriate features of
mammogram patches help in accurate classification.
Mammogram patches can be better classified by using their texture
properties1 . This work proposes a descriptor that captures the textural
features of a mammogram patch, i.e. Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT),
which is a variation of Histogram of Gradients (HOG) and Gabor filter
combination. We also apply the existing Pass Band - Discrete Cosine
Transform based descriptor (PB-DCT) here because of its advantage in
helping filter textural features. These descriptors have not been used yet for
mammogram patch classification. We use Discrimination Potentiality (DP) to
select appropriate features of mammogram patches in these two descriptors,
resulting in two new descriptors. The proposed descriptors are compared with
the six standard descriptors for mammogram patch classification; Zernike
moments (Tahmasbi et al., 2011), MLPQ (Nanni et al., 2012), GRsca
(Nanni et al., 2013), Wavelet Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (WGLCM)
(Beura et al., 2015), Local Configure Pattern (LCP) and Histogram of
Gradients (HOG) (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015). SVM is the most suitable classifier
for two-class classification and is widely used in this field. Hence, we use this.
Breasts with high density have a higher chance of cancer. However, high
dense tissues and masses appear as mostly white in a gray scale of a
mammogram patch. Hence, it is very difficult to detect a tumor in high dense
tissues. Especially, the difference between benign and malignant tumors is
hard to determine (De Oliveira et al., 2011; Oliver et al., 2008, 2012, 2010;
Petroudi & Brady, 2011). Generally, breasts are classified based upon density
in three different ways by the Breast Imaging Reporting And Database
Systems (BIRADS); two classes (fatty and dense), three classes (fatty,
glandular, and dense) or four classes (mostly fatty, scattered density,
consistent density and extremely dense) (De Oliveira et al., 2011; Oliver et al.,
2008). Most researchers in this area have not considered the density of a
breast for mammogram patch classification (normal-abnormal and
benign-malignant). Hence, in this work, using a two-stage mammogram patch
classification system, we test our two proposed descriptors for each BIRADS
class separately.
CAD systems are usually tested on the MIAS and DDSM mammogram
patch datasets of the IRMA database (Deserno, 2012). The MIAS dataset
consists of a small set of images, while DDSM includes few thousand images.
Several descriptors and methodologies have been proposed for mammogram
patch classification, but their performances have been investigated only for a
small set of images. Moreover, these systems have not achieved desired accuracy
(Petroudi & Brady, 2011; De Oliveira et al., 2011). The performance of our
system is tested on all mammogram patches of the MIAS and DDSM datasets.
1 It is relatively hard to classify a mammogram patch as benign-malignant (as compared
to normal-abnormal) due to their lack of distinctive properties (Mudigonda et al., 2001).

3

The experimental results show the effectiveness of our approach; we achieve
near to 92% accuracy.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a summary
of the related work. Section 3 explains the proposed CAD system. Section 4
presents experimental results. Finally, Section 5 gives conclusion and discusses
future work.
2. Literature Review
Researchers have reviewed existing techniques for detection and analysis of
abnormalities in mammogram patches as discussed earlier (calcification,
masses, tumors, bilateral asymmetry, and architectural distortion)
(Rangayyan et al., 2007). Some people have also reviewed the contribution of
texture to risk assessment for each density separately (Oliver et al., 2010).
Mammogram patches consist of directionally oriented, texture image due to its
fibro-glandular tissues, ligaments, blood vessels and ducts. These texture
features for mammogram patches can be categorized into four groups;
statistical
(Oliver et al.,
2012;
Rabottino et al.,
2008;
Shanthi & Murali Bhaskaran, 2012; Peng et al., 2016; Beura et al., 2015), local
pattern histogram (Abdel-Nasser et al., 2015; Ergin & Kilinc, 2015;
De Oliveira et al.,
2011;
Petroudi & Brady,
2011),
directional
(Buciu & Gacsadi, 2011; Leena Jasmine et al., 2009; Gedik, 2016;
Mudigonda et al., 2000, 2001), and transform based (Laadjel et al., 2015;
Dabbaghchian et al., 2010).
Statistical features such as mean, variance, energy, entropy, skewness, and
kurtosis are mostly utilized as a descriptor for classification (Oliver et al., 2012;
Rabottino et al., 2008; Shanthi & Murali Bhaskaran, 2012; Peng et al., 2016;
Beura et al., 2015). Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) and Gray Level
Run Length Matrix (GLRLM) provide the relationship between neighboring
pixels of a mammogram patch. Statistical properties of these matrices have
also been exploited for mammogram patch classification (Beura et al., 2015).
These features are extracted by directly using spatial data from images.
Some works have exploited local distribution of textural properties of
mammogram patches for classification.
Histogram of Gradients (HOG)
(Ergin & Kilinc, 2015), Local Configure Pattern (LCP) (Ergin & Kilinc,
2015), Uniform Directional Pattern (UDP) (Abdel-Nasser et al., 2015), Local
Ternary Pattern (LTP) (Muramatsu et al., 2016), Local Phase Quantization
(LPQ) (Ojansivu & Heikkilä, 2008) and Local Binary Pattern (LBP)
(Oliver et al., 2007) are some such examples. There are three different variants
of LBP, which are usually used for exploiting local textural properties;
Uniform Local Binary Pattern (LBP-u), Rotation Invariant Local Binary
Pattern (LBP-ri) and Rotation Invariant Uniform Local Binary Pattern
(LBP-riu) (Nanni et al., 2012; Ojala et al., 2002).
Block-wise feature
extraction gives better performance as compared to global feature vectors.
Statistical properties of local histogram have also been used as a mammogram
patch descriptor for classification (Wajid & Hussain, 2015).
4

Coming to directional features, wavelet, dual-tree complex wavelet Gabor,
Contourlet, finite Shearlet, etc. have been exploited for multi-resolution and
multi-orientation texture or tissue analysis of a mammogram patch
(Leena Jasmine et al., 2009; Gedik, 2016; Mudigonda et al., 2000, 2001).
Gabor based feature extraction schemes are widely used for mass classification
as benign-malignant. Gabor features can be extracted from mammogram
patches in different ways (Buciu & Gacsadi, 2011; Khan et al., 2016).
Recently, some people have proposed directional features of mammogram
patches computed by a Gabor wavelet for four different scales and eight
different orientations (Buciu & Gacsadi, 2011). Optimal parameters of a
Gabor filter increases discrimination between normal and abnormal properties.
Finally, the fourth category for texture feature extraction is by using a
mathematical transform. For example, Discrete Cosine Transform is one such
option (Laadjel et al., 2015; Dabbaghchian et al., 2010).
In this work, we first propose a descriptor that exploits local distribution of
textural property (HOG) as well as considers directional features (Gabor). We
term it as Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT). The reason for deriving this
descriptor is that, for density-based mammogram patch classification,
individually these two descriptors have their own drawbacks, which are
eliminated in their combination. The width of tissues may vary with the
density of a mammogram patch, and it is difficult to estimate with HOG.
Applying a Gabor filter for feature extraction on the whole mammogram
patch is not useful since abnormalities are usually very local. The combination
of HOG and Gabor filter is not new (see Conde et al. (2013); Ouanan et al.
(2015); Xu et al. (2015)). However, none of these works have applied this
combination to mammogram patch classification. Moreover, our combination
is optimally designed for solving the problem at-hand. We do a detailed
comparison of our descriptor with these existing ones at the end of Section
3.2.1, i.e. after describing our descriptor.
The HOT descriptor mentioned above has few drawbacks in terms of
capturing all textural features. Next, we revisit a transform based descriptor;
Pass Band - Discrete Cosine Transform (PB-DCT). This descriptor has not
been used yet for density-based mammogram patch classification. DCT has
very strong energy compaction capability, i.e., an image can be represented by
a small set of coefficients. DCT coefficients are divided into three bands; high,
middle and low. The high-frequency coefficients correspond to irrelevant
information, the medium frequency coefficients carry textural information, and
the low-frequency coefficients contain illumination information.
We use
PB-DCT like a band pass filter to extract mostly the middle frequencies with
some amount of low frequencies as well.
The dimension of features can be reduced by either using a feature
selection scheme or a dimension reduction scheme (Gedik, 2016). Feature
selection schemes select the appropriate feature set based upon a criterion
(such as entropy, fisher, maximum mutual information, etc.), while dimension
reduction schemes project features onto an other dimensional subspace using
orthogonal matrices. If the number of training samples for each class is less
5

than the dimension of features, it is known as small sample size (SSS). Under
this circumstance, which is common, some matrices in the dimension reduction
approach become singular leading to difficulty in further computation (Gedik,
2016). In general, it has been found from literature that the rank-based feature
selection approach is more suitable for feature reduction. Hence, we use this.
Genetic algorithm can also be utilized for selecting suitable features from
intensity, texture and shape features for benign and malignant classification of
mammogram patches (Rouhi et al., 2015). This is part of future work.
Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Fisher
Linear Discriminant (FLD), Naive Bayes and Neural Network with
Multi-Layer Perception Learning have been utilized for mammogram patch
classification (Gedik, 2016; Beura et al., 2015; Wajid & Hussain, 2015). SVM
is the most suitable classifier for two class classification and is widely used in
this field. Hence, we use this. Recently, ensembles of two or more classifiers
(also called as multiclassifiers) have been used to improve the classification
accuracy (see Nanni et al. (2012)). In this work, first, different descriptors are
obtained by varying certain parameters. Then, after extracting features by
using each of these descriptors, different classifiers are trained. Finally, these
classifiers are combined by some technique (e.g., different SVMs are combined
by a sum rule). This type of work will be explored in future.
Mammogram patches are usually categorized into four classes based upon
the level of density (i.e., fat transparent (d), fibro-glandular (e), heterogeneously
dense (f ), and extremely dense (g)). As earlier, this is called the BIRADS
classification. Each BIRADS category is divided into three classes as normal,
benign and malignant (De Oliveira et al., 2008; Deserno, 2012; Deserno et al.,
2012).
The IRMA reference database is a repository of mammogram patches and
has been created by Deserno et al. to test the accuracy of approaches for
mammogram patch classification. It contains the two datasets, MIAS and
DDSM. This database provides information about images based on the type of
background tissue and the class of abnormality present in the mammogram
patch. Table 1 lists the number of images in both the MIAS and DDSM
datasets based upon the above discussed classification. Some sample patches
are shown in Fig. 1
Some of the related works are summarized in Table 2, along with the details
of feature vectors, classifiers, and a number of images used in experiments.
The accuracy obtained for both types of classification (normal-abnormal and
benign-malignant) is also given. The performance of approaches depends on
different factors of mammogram patches such as dimension, number of training
and testing samples, resolution and the type of abnormality. Most of the works
in this area have tested on a subset of images instead of all mammogram patches,
which we use.
To summarize, in this work the two proposed feature extraction descriptors
(HOT and PB-DCT with feature selection technique called Discrimination
Potentiality) are compared with existing techniques for two-stage classification
of all images of the IRMA database. This is done for individual density as well
6

Table 1: Distribution of normal, benign, and malignant mammogram patches of the two
different datasets for the four BIRADS classes.

BIRADS
d
e
f
g
Total
d
e
f
g
Total

IRMA: MIAS Patch Dataset
Normal Benign Malignant
12
14
11
28
1
5
24
8
6
26
9
6
90
32
28
IRMA: DDSM Patch Dataset
203
219
222
168
232
228
195
225
227
207
224
226
773
900
903

Total
37
34
38
41
150
644
628
647
657
2576

Figure 1: Samples of mammogram patches from the IRMA database. Row denotes the
density of patches.

as together.
images.

We achieve higher accuracy than existing techniques for all

3. Proposed Mammogram Patch Classification System
This work proposes a two-stage mammogram patch classification system.
In the first stage, mammogram patches are classified as normal-abnormal, and
in the second stage, abnormal mammogram patches are classified as benignmalignant. The framework of the proposed work for training and testing phase
is shown in Fig. 2.
Here, we first discuss image pre-processing and enhancement techniques
used by us.
Mammogram patches are preprocessed for illumination
normalization and visibility enhancement of tumors and tissues
(Anand & Gayathri, 2015; Sundaram et al., 2011). A two-stage adaptive
histogram equalization enhancement technique is used here for texture
7

Table 2: Summary of some related works on mammogram patch classification.

Feature

Classifier Database Number
of
images

Gabor + PCA
(Buciu & Gacsadi,
2011)
GLCM + DWT
(Beura et al., 2015)
HOG, DSIFT, & LCP
(Ergin & Kilinc, 2015)
FFST
(Gedik, 2016)
Gabor
(Khan et al., 2016)

Accuracy Accuracy
(normal(benignabnormal) malignant)

SVM

DDSM

NA

84.00%

78.00%

BPNN∗

MIAS
DDSM

332
550

98.10%
99.45%

95.04%
97.61%

SVM

DDSM

600

84.00%

78.00%

MIAS
DDSM
DDSM

228
228
1024

98.29%
100.00%
98.82%

100.00%
98.29%
91.61%

SVM
PSO∗∗ +
SVM

∗ BPNN:
∗∗ PSO:

Back Propagation Neural Network.
Particle Swarm Optimization.

enhancement of mammogram patches (Anand & Gayathri, 2015). Second, we
discuss our two proposed feature extraction techniques, where features of
mammogram patches are extracted from enhanced images. Finally, we discuss
the feature selection technique used by us.
3.1. Pre-processing and Enhancement
In this work, for pre-processing, we only normalize the intensity of pixels and
that too for a few mammogram patches. This is because while capturing images,
illumination conditions are usually not the same. So, the range of the gray level
is different for different mammogram patches. Hence, we use a simple and the
most commonly used normalization formula (given below), which normalizes the
intensity of pixels between 0 and 1 (Jain et al., 2005; Srisuk & Petpon, 2008).
I ′ (x, y) =

I(x, y) − min(I)
,
max(I) − min(I)

where (x, y) is the pixel position, I ′ (x, y) is the normalized pixel intensity, I(x, y)
is the actual pixel intensity, min(I) is the minimum intensity over all the pixels,
and max(I) is the maximum intensity over all the pixels.
Next, we discuss tissue enhancement of mammogram patches. Histogram
equalization is the one of the most basic technique here, which stretches the
contrast of the high histogram regions and compresses the contrast of the low
histogram regions. As a result, if the region of interest in an image occupies only
a small portion, it will not be properly enhanced during histogram equalization.
This leads to more advanced techniques for enhancement, e.g., Adaptive
Histogram Equalization (AHE), Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram
8

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Flow diagram of the proposed mammogram patch classification system; (a) training
phase and (b) testing phase.

Equalization (CLAHE), Unsharp Masking (UM), Non-Linear Unsharp
Masking (NLUM), Two-Stage Adaptive Histogram Equalization (TSAHE), etc
(Anand & Gayathri, 2015; Panetta et al., 2011).
CLAHE has been found to be more suitable for tissue enhancement in
mammogram patches. One aspect of enhancement is to capture the texture of
the breast in mammogram patches better, which is defined by entropy. In the
work of Anand & Gayathri (2015), authors have shown that TSAHE performs
better than most of the existing techniques in not just the overall enhancement
(defined by EME, i.e. Measure of Enhancement) but entropy as well.
Since cancerous cells mostly develop in tissues and our proposed descriptors
(HOT and PB-DCT) are strongly tied to breast texture, we use a combination
of CLAHE and TSAHE. We term it as TS-CLAHE.
We apply two stages of CLAHE on mammogram patches in a cascaded order.
Firstly, histogram equalization is applied to 8 × 8 sized blocks, followed by an
application to 4 × 4 sized of blocks. Fig. 3 shows the normalized and the
enhanced image of a mammogram patch. It is observed that mass tissues are
clearly visible in the enhanced image.

9

Figure 3: A preprocessed and enhanced mammogram patch.

3.2. Feature Extraction Techniques
As discussed in Sections 1 and 2, this work proposes two descriptors (HOT
and PB-DCT) for mammogram patch classification. HOT is a modification of
the HOG descriptor where a Gabor filter is used to calculate the angle and
the magnitude response of texture of a mammogram patch. Selected PB-DCT
coefficients based features are used here to improve the classification accuracy
for each density class. Next, we discuss these two techniques separately. To
the best of our knowledge, these strategies have not been applied anywhere for
mammogram patch classification.
3.2.1. The Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT) Descriptor
Here, we derive our HOT descriptor. Firstly, we discuss the calculations of
gradient and orientation of an image as well as the HOG descriptor calculation
from cells and blocks partitions (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015). Secondly, we describe a
Gabor filter, which is used to extract magnitude and orientation of tissue texture
information, and finally, we discuss modifications to the HOG descriptor that
involves a Gabor filter and parameter selection.
Gradient of an image I in horizontal and vertical directions, for a pixel
position (x, y) is computed as
dx
dy

= I(x + 1, y) − I(x − 1, y) and
= I(x, y + 1) − I(x, y − 1),

respectively. For each pixel, I(x, y), the gradient magnitude m(x, y) and
orientation θ(x, y) are computed as below.
p
m(x, y) =
dx2 + dy 2 and
(1)
 
dy
.
(2)
θ(x, y) = tan−1
dx
Orientation range (00 − 1800 ) is quantized into B bins (i.e., θ(x, y) ∈ bin(b)
with b = 1, 2, 3, . . . , B). The image is divided into c × c non-overlapping cells,
and l × l cells are integrated as one block. Two adjacent blocks can overlap.

10

The histogram of orientations (HC(b)i ) of bin(b) within ith cell is computed as
HC(b)i
m(x, y)
b
i

= HC(b)i + m(x, y),
∈ Celli ,

= 1, 2, 3, . . . , B, and
= 1, 2, 3, . . . , c × c.

The histogram of j th block (HBj ) is obtained by integrating HCs (Histogram
of Cells) within this block as follows:
HB j

= HC1 k HC2 k . . . k HCl×l ,

where k denotes histograms concatenation into a vector. The vector of HBj is
finally normalized by L2 -norm block normalization as below to obtain N HB j .
HBj
N HB j = p
,
kHBj k22 + e2

where e is a small constant to avoid problem of division by zero. Histogram of
Oriented Gradients (HOG) can be obtained by integrating normalized
histograms of all blocks as below.
HOG = N HB1 k N HB2 k . . . N HBj k . . . , kN HBN ,
where N is the number of possible blocks in an image, which is equal to (c −
l + 1) × (c − l + 1). Fig. 4 shows an example of cell partitions, formation of
overlapped blocks and concatenation of histograms to get the HOG descriptor.
2
Finally, the length of HOG is l2 × (c − l + 1) × B.

Figure 4: The HOG descriptor calculation.

Different line-shape filters or tools are available in the literature to extract
lines and orientation features of a texture image (Khan et al., 2016). 2-D
11

Gabor filters have been found more suitable filter bank to extract
biological-like textural features of simple cells in the mammalian visual system
(Kamarainen et al., 2006). Thus, a Gabor filter is ideal for calculating
multi-orientation texture features of a mammogram patch. A Gabor function
is defined as follows:
G(x, y, θ, µ, σ)

=

1
2πσ2

n 2 2o
+y
exp [2πi (µx cos θ + µy sin θ)] ,
exp − x 2σ
2

(3)

√
where i = −1, µ is the frequency of the sinusoidal wave, θ controls the
orientation of the function, and σ is the standard deviation of the Gaussian
envelop. Based upon this Gabor function, a set of Gabor filters can be created
for different scales and orientations.
Here, texture feature extraction for a given mammogram patch image (I)
is calculated by the real part of a Gabor filter bank with eight different
orientations and a fixed scale. Gabor magnitude, m(x, y)Gabor , and Gabor
orientation, θ(x, y)Gabor , response of each pixel (x, y) are computed as
mGabor (x, y) = min(I(x, y) ∗ G(x, y, θt , µ, σ)) and
θGabor (x, y) = argmint (I(x, y) ∗ G(x, y, θt , µ, σ)),
where ∗ means the convolution operation. The direction θt is calculated as
follows:
π(t − 1)
θt =
, t = 1, 2, . . . , 8.
8
The features are calculated by varying the values of σ and µ. Fig. 5 shows
the magnitude and angle image of a mammogram patch.
Enhanced Image

Magnitude

Angle

Figure 5: Gabor magnitude and angle image.

We combine HOG with a Gabor filter and name it as Histogram of Oriented
Texture (HOT). HOT is computed in the same way as HOG, but mGabor (x, y)
and θGabor (x, y) are used as magnitude and orientation of texture line instead
of (1) and (2), respectively.
Finally, optimum parameters of the HOT descriptor, for both types of
classification, are chosen by experiments. The value of σ is varied from one to
five to obtain an optimum number. The value of µ is computed as √12σ . In
this work, the magnitude image is divided into equal sized 16 × 16 cells. Size
of a block considered is 2 × 2, therefore, 15 × 15 overlapped blocks are formed.
12

The orientation range (00 − 1800 ) is quantized into 8 bins, and therefore, the
final length of the resultant HOT descriptor is 7200. The length of the HOT
descriptor is large, and all features do not have same discrimination capability
(Liu et al., 2002). Feature selection schemes help to select more appropriate
features. This is discussed in Section 3.3.
Next, we compare our proposed HOT descriptor with other works that use
a combination of HOG and Gabor filter. In work by Xu et al. (2015), authors
use a Gabor filter to extract features and HOG to reduce the dimension of the
extracted feature vector. However, we use a combination of both to extract
features. Comparison with two other works in this area is given in Table 3.
Apart from the differences discussed until now, we (i.e. in the HOT descriptor)
use Discrimination Potentiality for feature selection, which none of the other
works use.
Table 3: Comparison of various descriptors using a combination of HOG and Gabor filter

Parameters

HoGG
(Conde et al., 2013)

Gabor-HOG
(Ouanan et al., 2015)

HOT

9

4

8

9

9

8

Number of
Orientations
Number of
Bins
Number of Cells
to Divide Image
Overlapped
Image Area
Feature Vector
Length

4×8

Application Area

3×7

Rectangular Cells
(Number Not Given)
Half of the
Image

756

81

7200

Human
Detection for
Surveillance

Face
Recognition

Mammogram
Patch
Classification

16 × 16
15 × 15

3.2.2. Pass Band - Discrete Cosine Transform (PB-DCT)
2D Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) transforms images into frequency
representation from the spatial form. It also provides energy compaction, that
helps to reduce the information redundancy by retaining only a few
coefficients. DCT coefficients of I(x, y) image of M × N size are calculated as
follows:

13

F (u, v)

=

M−1
−1
XN
X
1
√
α(u)α(v)
I(x, y) ×
MN
x=0 y=0




(2y + 1)vπ
(2x + 1)uπ
× cos
with
cos
2M
2N
u = 0, 1, 2, . . . , M, v = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N,

(4)

where α(ω) is defined by
α(ω) =



√1
2

1

ω=0
otherwise.

DCT based various feature extraction and compression techniques have been
proposed in literature (Dabbaghchian et al., 2010). Usually, DCT features are
formed by selecting the most prominent and discriminating coefficients based
upon some criterion (Dabbaghchian et al., 2010). The DCT coefficients can be
divided into three sets, low frequencies, middle frequencies and high frequencies.
Low frequencies are correlated with illumination conditions, middle frequencies
represent texture features, while high frequencies represent small variance or
noise. Illumination and texture properties are important for mammogram patch
classification. Therefore, this work uses low and middle coefficients to form the
descriptor (the Pass Band - Discrete Cosine descriptor or abbreviated as PBDCT). Finally, the more discriminate DCT coefficients are selected based upon
a discrimination criterion, which is discussed in the next section.
3.3. Feature Selection with Discrimination Potentiality
All features do not have the same ability to discriminate various classes
(normal-abnormal and benign-malignant) (Liu et al., 2002), and they do not
increase the accuracy based on available information for each class. Therefore,
it is necessary to eliminate irrelevant features and select the most discriminative
features among a given set of features (Kao et al., 2010). Determining features
to improve accuracy as well as reduce searching time is a difficult task. As
discussed in Section 2, feature subset selection techniques have been found to
be more suitable for mammogram patch classification as compared to dimension
reduction techniques.
There exist many techniques for feature selection. Some of the common
ones are as follows: PCA (Principal Component Analysis) method, Markov
blanket method, wrapper methods (e.g., sequential selection algorithm, genetic
algorithms etc.), filter methods (e.g., Pearson correlation criteria, mutual
information etc.), embedded methods, and statistical measures based methods
(e.g., T-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Kullback-Leibler divergence etc.)
(Chandrashekar & Sahin, 2014; Zeng et al., 2009).
Out of these, wrapper methods, filter methods, and statistical measures
based methods are usually used for mammogram patch classification. Wrapper
methods are computationally expensive since the number of steps required for
14

obtaining the feature subset are very high. Filter methods sometimes lead to a
redundant feature subset, and hence, are not optimal in this sense.
(Chandrashekar & Sahin, 2014). Thus, we go for statistical measures based
methods since they do not have the above discussed drawbacks. These
methods also have the advantage in reducing the feature space without
significantly degrading the classification performance (Dong & Wang, 2009).
The T-test method is one such method that gives a high score to features
that capture the texture and the shape of mammograms (Nandi et al., 2006).
As earlier, capturing texture is very important to us. Moreover, the T-test
method is computationally light, easy to implement, and has been very recently
successfully applied in mammogram context (Gedik, 2016; Jenifer et al., 2016).
Thus, we use this feature selection method and show in the results section
that this works very well with our proposed descriptors (DP-HOT and DP-PBDCT). We term it as Discrimination Potentiality (DP) because of its capability
in discriminating between the available features.
The discrimination potentiality DPk of the k th feature between two classes
(a and b) is computed from a given training set as follows:
µa,k − µb,k
,
DPk = q 2
2
δb,k
δa,k
−
na
nb
where µa,k , µb,k , and δa,k , δb,k , are mean and standard deviation values of
the k th feature for a and b classes, respectively. na and nb are the number of
mammogram patches for a and b classes, respectively. A high value of DP means
high discrimination ability of the corresponding feature (Jenifer et al., 2016).
All features (columns) of the feature matrix are arranged in descending order
of their DP value. Initially, first five features with highest DP values are chosen
for classification accuracy. Then, classification accuracy is calculated by adding
features, with next higher value of DP , one by one until we get the highest
accuracy. The optimum subset of features corresponding to the highest accuracy
is selected as the final descriptor.
4. Experimental Results
Experiments are carried out in MATLAB R on a machine with Intel Quad
Core processor @2.83GHz and 8GB RAM. As discussed earlier, mammogram
patches are taken from the IRMA database (the MIAS and DDSM datasets).
All images from this database (density wise), as given earlier in Table 1, are
used. The size of each mammogram patch is 128 × 128.
We first use two-fold cross validation, where the dataset is randomly divided
into two equal parts. One part is used for training and the other is used for
testing. Then, the two parts are swapped. That is, the one used for training
earlier is now used for testing, and the one used for testing earlier is now used
for training. At the end of this exercise, average performance is saved. Finally,
we repeat two-fold cross validation ten times so as to remove any bias related
to the division of the dataset.
15

The performance of our system (and comparative systems) is evaluated by
standard metrics of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC (Area Under the
ROC Curve).
Sensitivity is computed as the number of true positive cases over the number
of actual positive cases. It is represented as follows:
Sensitivity =

TP
(%),
TP + FN

where TP means True Positive cases and FN means False Negative cases.
Specificity is computed as the number of true negative cases over the number
of actual negative cases. It is represented as follows:
Specif icity =

TN
(%),
FP + TN

where TN means True Negative cases and FP means False Positive cases.
Accuracy is computed as the number of correct classifications over the
number of given cases. It is represented as follows:
Accuracy =

TP + TN
(%).
TP + FN + FP + TN

AUC (Area Under the ROC Curve) provides a measure of the overall
performance of the classifier, i.e. larger the area, better the classification. It is
calculated from the trapezoidal rule as below (Yeh, 2002).
n

AU C =

1X
((Spec(k) − Spec(k + 1)) ∗ (Sens(k) + Sens(k + 1)))(%),
2
k=1

where n is the total number of test cases, and Spec(k) and Sens(k) are
Specificity and Sensitivity for the k th test case, respectively. In the case of an
ideal classification system, the value of all the four metrics should be close to
100%.
This section has three subparts. In Section 4.1, experiments related to
finding the optimum parameters of the Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT)
descriptor with Discrimination Potentiality (DP), from now on referred as
DP-HOT, are given. Similar experimental results for the Pass Band - Discrete
Cosine Transform (PB-DCT) descriptor with Discrimination Potentiality
(DP), from now on referred as DP-PB-DCT, are given in Section 4.2. Finally,
in Section 4.3, the performance of both our proposed descriptors, DP-HOT
and DP-PB-DCT, is compared with the performance of the existing (and
popular) descriptors.
For fixing the parameters, only the training data is used (i.e. 50%, as we use
two-fold cross validation) and the validation data for testing is kept blind.
4.1. Performance of DP-HOT
Firstly, experiments are performed to find optimum parameters of Gabor
filter for all the classes. Performance parameters are calculated by varying the
16

Figure 6: Comparison of normal-abnormal classification accuracies obtained by varying the
value of σ from one to five for each individual BIRADS class.

value of σ from one to five to obtain suitable scale for each density class. The
best accuracy obtained by varying σ is mentioned here.
Fig. 6 compares normal-abnormal classification accuracy for different
values of σ for each class. It is observed that the DP-HOT descriptor achieves
approximately 100% accuracy for all values of σ for all the classes of the MIAS
dataset. The maximum normal-abnormal classification accuracy of all the
classes combined is achieved with σ as one. It is difficult to infer the optimum
value of σ by observing the bar chart of the MIAS dataset only. In case of the
DDSM dataset, the DP-HOT descriptor with σ as one gives the best accuracy
for all the classes individually as well as combined. For classes e and f ,
DP-HOT achieves an accuracy of around 95%, while it does not achieve good
accuracy for classes d and g (around 70%).

Figure 7: Comparison of benign-malignant classification accuracies obtained by varying the
value of σ from one to five for each individual BIRADS class.

Fig. 7 compares benign-malignant classification accuracy for different values
of σ for each class. The DP-HOT descriptor again achieves approximately 100%
accuracy for all values of σ for all the classes of the MIAS dataset. The maximum
benign-malignant classification accuracy for all the classes combined is achieved
with σ as 3. For the DDSM dataset, the DP-HOT descriptor performs equally
for all σ for all the classes (around 70%).
First observation is that DP-HOT does not perform very well for both
types of classification (normal-abnormal and benign-malignant) for the DDSM
dataset (although it does perform well for MIAS). The reason, as discussed in
17

Section 2, is that texture information plays a big role in both types of
classifications (normal-abnormal and benign-malignant), and DP-HOT does
not capture that well for the DDSM dataset. The DP-PB-DCT descriptor
overcomes this drawback to a great extent. Another observation is that
classification accuracy for an individual class is better than combined. This is
intuitive since images in a class are similar.
Table 4 lists the feature length used for both types of classification (normalabnormal and benign-malignant) done on both the datasets (MIAS and DDSM)
for each density class.
Table 4: Feature length for the DP-HOT descriptor.

BIRADS Class
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All

MIAS: Feature Length
Normal-Abnormal
2655
10
30
20
40
Benign-Malignant
2000
All Benign
2000
1790
2000

DDSM: Feature Length
210
100
75
200
140
225
130
405
170
990

4.2. Performance of DP-PB-DCT
As in the case of the DP-HOT descriptor, in Table 5 we list the feature length
used for both types of classification (normal-abnormal and benign-malignant)
done on both the datasets (MIAS and DDSM) for each density class when using
the DP-PB-DCT descriptor.
Since, the selection of features in the DP-PB-DCT descriptor is more critical,
we do further feature selection analysis here. Fig. 8 compares accuracy against
the number of features for normal-abnormal and benign-malignant classification
for each density class separately and combined. As in the case of DP-HOT, the
performance for individual density is better than combined. Moreover, multiple
points with the high classification accuracy are observed.
4.3. Comparison with Other Techniques
The performance of the two proposed descriptors is compared with some
related descriptors such as Zernike moment (Tahmasbi et al., 2011), MLPQ
(Nanni et al., 2012), GRsca (Nanni et al., 2013), WGLCM (Beura et al., 2015),
LCP (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015) and HOG (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015) for each density
class separately as well as combined. The performance of each descriptor is

18

Table 5: Feature length for the DP-PB-DCT descriptor.

BIRADS Class
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All

MIAS: Feature Length
Normal-Abnormal
5
5
5
5
5
Benign-Malignant
5
5
5
5
5

DDSM: Feature Length
4000
4000
995
1315
430
4350
4005
3995
4625
5065

evaluated in the same experimental setup including the use of the same testing
protocol.
The parameters of each of these descriptors are selected as given in the
literature to achieve the best performance for mammogram patch classification.
These parameters are summarized below.
The Zernike moment descriptor is computed by dividing a mammogram
patch into 4 × 4 blocks. 120 Zernike moments are used for obtaining the final
mammogram patch descriptor. Therefore, the length of the feature vector is
4 × 4 × 120 (Tahmasbi et al., 2011).
The MLPQ descriptor is computed by concatenating different Local Phase
Quantization (LPQ) descriptors. Each LPQ descriptor is obtained by varying
values of three different parameters. This includes filter size (r with values
1, 3, 5), the scalar frequency (a with values 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6), and the
correlation coefficient (ρ with values 0.75, 0.95, 1.15, 1.35, 1.55, 1.75, 1.95). Each
LPQ descriptor’s length is standard (256). Therefore, the length of the feature
vector is 3 × 5 × 7 × 256 (Nanni et al., 2012).
The GRsca descriptor extracts features from the three gray-level run length
co-occurrence matrices corresponding to the original image and two filtered
images (using a filter of size 3 and 5). These images are divided into four blocks.
Features are obtained from co-occurrence matrix and these four blocks. A set
of ten different descriptors is calculated at four different orientations and two
different distances. Therefore, the length of the feature vector is 3×5×10×4×2
(Nanni et al., 2013).
The Wavelet Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (WGLCM) descriptor is
computed by decomposing the image into one approximation.
Detail
coefficients up to two levels with a wavelet filter are used. For each level, three
decompositions (along horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions) are
obtained. The normalized GLCM (NGLCM) matrices of all detail coefficients
are calculated in four directions (0◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ , and 135◦ ) with a single
19

DDSM

MIAS

1

1
0.95

0.95
0.9

d
e
f
g
all

0.85

Accuracy

Accuracy

0.9

0.85
d
e
f
g
all

0.8

0.75

0.7
0

100

200
300
Selected number of feature

400

0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55

500

0

500

1000

1500

Selected number of features

(MIAS)

(DDSM)
Normal-Abnormal

MIAS

DDSM

1

1
0.95

0.95

0.9

Accuracy

Accuracy

0.85

0.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65

d
f
g
all

0.75

0.7

d
e
f
g
all

0.85

0.9

0.6
0.55
0.5

500

0

Selected number of feature

500

1000

1500

Selected number of feature

(MIAS)

(DDSM)
Benign-Malignant

Figure 8: Performance accuracy against the number of DP-PB-DCT features.

displacement.
Contrast, homogeneity, energy, and correlation statistical
properties of all NGLCM matrices are calculated and concatenated into a
vector.
Therefore, the length of the feature vector is 2 × 3 × 4 × 4
(Beura et al., 2015).
Local Configure Pattern (LCP) is a modification of Local Binary Pattern
(LBP). Here, first, the weights associated with intensities of neighboring pixels
are used to linearly reconstruct the central pixel intensity. Then, the error
between the central pixel and its neighbor is minimized. In this work, LCP
images are computed for radius 1 to 5. Each LCP image is divided into 4 × 4
blocks. The histogram of each block is concatenated with 58 bins, and the result
is used as a mammogram patch descriptor. Therefore, the length of the feature
vector is 5 × 4 × 4 × 58 (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015).
Histogram of Gradients (HOG) is calculated using 16 × 16 cell partitions.
The size of the block considered is 2 × 2, thus, 15 × 15 overlapped blocks are
formed. The orientation range is quantized into 8 bins. Therefore, the length
of the feature vector is 2 × 2 × 15 × 15 × 8 (Ergin & Kilinc, 2015).
The optimum parameters of DP-HOT and DP-PB-DCT are selected based
upon experiments as discussed in the previous subsections. The length of each

20

descriptor is different and the appropriate feature set for each descriptor is
selected based upon the DP values as described earlier.
4.3.1. Classification Results
Table 6 compares sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC for
normal-abnormal classification with all the above descriptors on the MIAS and
DDSM datasets. The performance parameters for all the descriptors are
provided for each density class separately as well as combined. The best
performing systems are highlighted in bold.
For the MIAS dataset, both the proposed descriptors (DP-HOT and DPPB-HOT) achieve near 100% sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC for all
the classes. This is better than the six standard descriptors (Zernike moment,
MLPQ, GRsca, WGLCM, LCP, and HOG).
For the DDSM dataset, although our DP-HOT descriptor performs almost
as badly as the other six descriptors for all the classes (as low as around 65% for
one performance parameter), DP-PB-DCT performs extremely well for all the
classes (more than 92% for most performance parameters), which is better than
the six standard descriptors. All the eight descriptors (the six standard and the
two new) perform well for classes e and f but have a dip in the performance for
classes d and g. This is because for the DDSM dataset, texture discrimination
for e and f classes is better than for d and g classes, which is crucial in normalabnormal classification.
Table 7 compares performance parameters for benign-malignant
classification with all the above eight descriptors for all the classes (and
combined) of the MIAS and DDSM datasets. As earlier, the best performing
systems are highlighted in bold.
The results are similar to those for
normal-abnormal classification. Note that in the MIAS dataset, the e class has
all benign images, so, classification was not performed for this.
The
corresponding rows in this table are left empty.
For the MIAS dataset, both the proposed descriptors (DP-HOT and DPPB-DCT) perform slightly better than the six standard descriptors for all the
classes (achieve near 100% sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC).
For the DDSM dataset, DP-HOT is slightly better than the existing
descriptors (around 70% for all performance parameters), while DP-PB-DCT
is much better than the six standard descriptors for all the classes (more than
92% for most performance parameters).
To summarize, as mentioned in Section 2 as well as Section 4.1, capturing
texture information is of utmost importance for mammogram patch
classification (both normal-abnormal and benign-malignant). In general,
DP-HOT captures this texture information slightly better than the six
standard descriptors, and hence, it performs slightly better than these.
DP-PB-DCT captures texture information best, and hence, performs much
better than all the others.

21

Descriptor

Zernike
(Tahmasbi et al.,
2011)

MLPQ
(Nanni et al.,
2012)

GRsca
(Nanni et al.,
2013)

WGLCM
(Beura et al.,
2015)

LCP
(Ergin & Kilinc,
2015)

HOG
(Ergin & Kilinc,
2015)

DPHOT

DPPBDCT

BIRADS

Table 6: Mammogram patch classification results as normal-abnormal for the MIAS and
DDSM datasets.

d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All

MIAS

DDSM

Sens.

Spec.

Acc.

AUC

Sens.

Spec.

Acc.

AUC

99.12
94.98
92.86
91.31
75.92
89.21
100
100
68.75
72.60
76.92
100
100
66.96
68.95
92.15
90.91
100
60.96
64.72
92.31
100
100
73.21
75
88.46
100
100
85.71
70
100
100
100
100
87
100
100
100
100
97.18

93.59
99.63
99.88
97.87
91.70
75.00
96.30
100
92.31
88.50
70.00
100
100
100
98.79
50.83
100
100
100
100
66.67
100
100
96.15
97.78
91.67
100
95.83
100
87.78
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
98.89

97.32
98.81
97.29
95.42
85.39
84.70
96.96
100
83.10
82.14
74.59
100
100
87.86
86.85
78.71
98.40
100
85.93
85.89
83.63
100
100
87.74
88.67
89.47
100
97.36
95
80.67
100
100
100
100
93
100
100
100
100
97.33

90.28
100
100
75.82
85.11
90.28
100
100
90.66
88.15
85.90
100
100
84.13
91.26
73.61
100
100
80.77
93.41
80.56
100
100
64.42
85.70
100
100
100
100
85.85
100
100
100
100
97.26
100
100
100
100
100

90.01
99.78
99.56
83.32
91.90
80.29
99.97
99.91
83.14
86.07
86.03
100
100
83.41
88.44
85.54
99.84
99.70
84.94
86.24
87.99
100
100
86
87.80
84.36
99.57
98.23
82.22
87.69
83.44
96.96
94.69
77.78
84.80
98.19
100
100
97.78
87.18

68.64
85.12
95.91
36.72
61.99
73.51
99.97
99.91
54.06
88.14
79.53
100
100
63.85
88.64
84.92
99.98
100
62.25
93.21
89.07
100
100
69.10
93.39
78.62
94.64
88.73
56.52
77.95
64.69
95.24
89.75
57.06
77.30
94.01
100
100
80.70
79.37

83.32
95.86
98.46
68.63
82.95
78.16
99.97
99.91
73.97
86.69
84.00
100
100
77.24
88.50
85.34
99.87
99.79
77.78
88.33
88.32
100
100
80.67
89.47
82.56
98.25
95.36
74.12
84.77
77.57
96.50
93.20
71.24
82.56
96.88
100
100
92.39
84.84

91.69
100
100
81.89
82.03
89.71
100
100
81.80
93.59
88.23
100
100
82.26
95.48
94.38
100
100
85.81
94.97
90.39
100
100
74.93
92.88
87.58
98.79
97.67
77.70
88.32
91.20
100
100
76.05
86.21
98.39
100
100
98.68
92.20

22

Descriptor

Zernike
(Tahmasbi et al.,
2011)

MLPQ
(Nanni et al.,
2012)

GRsca
(Nanni et al.,
2013)

WGLCM
(Beura et al.,
2015)

LCP
(Ergin & Kilinc,
2015)

HOG
(Ergin & Kilinc,
2015)

DPHOT

DPPBDCT

BIRADS

Table 7: Mammogram patch classification results as benign-malignant for the MIAS and
DDSM datasets.

d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All
d
e
f
g
All

MIAS

DDSM

Sens.

Spec.

Acc.

AUC

Sens.

Spec.

Acc.

AUC

93.23
97.26
95.61
80.47
71.43
96.43
100
73.96
64.29
85.71
77.59
96.88
35.83
45.83
47.22
53.81
99.72
100
99.99
98.94
100
100
100
80.67
100
100
100
98.83
100
100
100
100

97.05
99.83
98.96
84.15
75.00
97.62
83.33
76.19
58.33
28.57
58.28
35.71
92.86
90.63
86.25
74.72
99.84
99.9
99.96
95.57
100
100
100
92.86
100
100
100
97.57
100
100
100
100

95.39
98.73
97.62
82.44
71.79
96.94
93.75
75.00
60.26
61.22
69.49
68.33
67.95
71.43
70.83
64.96
99.77
99.98
99.98
97.37
100
100
100
87.5
100
100
100
98.24
100
100
100
100

54.76
100
100
72.77
96.43
100
93.34
86.16
62.86
58.34
50
68.75
80.95
91.67
93.34
70.09
100
100
100
72.32
95.24
100
100
94.20
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

60.36
60.09
58.62
57.96
56.92
59.59
61.72
49.79
95.98
57.40
66.83
71.09
63.59
81.70
67.69
53.15
50.88
59.92
57.08
53.20
51.80
57.89
51.96
56.64
55.26
64.86
59.65
66.95
63.27
54.93
72.07
70.18
72.66
73.45
64.56
96.85
96.05
97.35
91.59
73.53

54.34
60.34
56.02
70.98
55.11
57.43
59.36
64.76
17.70
54.62
54.21
53.94
56.54
40.27
52.63
62.99
63.79
52.01
60.71
56.98
66.66
62.93
62.24
61.16
59.33
65.30
65.52
65.32
66.07
61.89
68.49
75
69.31
68.75
64.67
94.53
93.53
96.45
95.98
71.33

57.37
60.22
57.30
64.44
56.02
58.50
60.55
57.31
56.67
56.01
60.47
52.59
60.05
60.89
60.15
58.04
57.39
55.97
58.89
55.09
59.18
60.43
57.08
58.89
57.29
65.08
62.61
66.14
64.67
58.40
70.29
72.61
71.02
71.11
64.61
95.69
94.78
96.90
93.78
72.43

56.78
58.39
63.26
57.22
53.87
62.70
63.24
59.18
57.66
56.04
62.01
66.24
64.32
64.58
64.21
60.35
56.32
59.24
57.59
56.59
63.38
60.86
60.33
60.04
57.38
66.27
70.01
67.92
68.07
65.06
80.44
74.92
83.91
81.09
68.89
98.13
98.78
98.87
99
82.93

23

5. Conclusion and Future Work
We propose a variant of HOG and Gabor filter combination, which we call
Histogram of Oriented Texture (HOT) for mammogram patch classification. We
also revisit the Pass Band - Discrete Cosine Transform (PB-DCT) descriptor for
the same. The feature selection technique of Discrimination Potentiality (DP) is
used with the above two descriptors for mammogram patch classification. This
results in two new descriptors (DP-HOT and DP-PB-DCT). We consider the
density of mammogram patches as a factor for classification (this was not done
earlier), and show that this plays an important role in classification.
Our two-stage patch classification system (normal-abnormal and
benign-malignant), using the two new descriptors for each density class, is
tested on all images of the MIAS and DDSM datasets from the IRMA
repository (in literature, experiments have been done only on a subset of these
images). We achieve a high classification performance (in terms of specificity,
sensitivity, accuracy and AUC) in an absolute sense as well as in relative sense
(compared with the six standard descriptors). This is due to the fact that
textural information in a mammogram patch is crucial for classification, and
our descriptors capture that well.
Future work here involves developing a Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD)
application for full mammogram using our framework. This will aid radiologists
for more accurate diagnosis of breast cancer using only the information about
mammogram density.
6. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Dipl.-Ing. Thomas
Martin Deserno, Department of Medical Information, Division of Image and
Data Management, RWTH Aachen, Germany, for providing us the images.
Thanks to the anonymous reviewers that helped to greatly improve the
quality of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the editor handling
our manuscript, Prof.
Binshan Lin (at Louisiana State University,
Shreveport), in giving us the flexibility during revision submissions.
References
References
Abdel-Nasser, M., Rashwan, H. A., Puig, D., & Moreno, A. (2015). Analysis
of tissue abnormality and breast density in mammographic images using a
uniform local directional pattern. Expert Systems with Applications, 42 ,
9499–9511.
Anand, S., & Gayathri, S. (2015). Mammogram image enhancement by twostage adaptive histogram equalization. Optik-International Journal for Light
and Electron Optics, 126 , 3150–3152.
24

Beura, S., Majhi, B., & Dash, R. (2015). Mammogram classification using two
dimensional discrete wavelet transform and gray-level co-occurrence matrix
for detection of breast cancer. Neurocomputing, 154 , 1–14.
Buciu, I., & Gacsadi, A. (2011). Directional features for automatic tumor
classification of mammogram images. Biomedical Signal Processing and
Control , 6 , 370–378.
Chandrashekar, G., & Sahin, F. (2014). A survey on feature selection methods.
Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40 , 16–28.
Conde, C., Moctezuma, D., De Diego, I. M., & Cabello, E. (2013). HoGG:
Gabor and HoG-based human detection for surveillance in non-controlled
environments. Neurocomputing, 100 , 19–30.
Dabbaghchian, S., Ghaemmaghami, M. P., & Aghagolzadeh, A. (2010). Feature
extraction using discrete cosine transform and discrimination power analysis
with a face recognition technology. Pattern Recognition, 43 , 1431–1440.
De Oliveira, J. E. E., De Albuquerque Araújo, A., & Deserno, T. M. (2011).
Content-based image retrieval applied to BIRADS tissue classification in
screening mammography. World journal of radiology, 3 , 24–31.
De Oliveira, J. E. E., Deserno, T. M., & De Albuquerque Araújo, A. (2008).
Breast lesions classification applied to a reference database. In Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on E-Medical Systems (pp. 29–31). SETIT.
Deserno, T. M. (2012).
IRMA database.
http://ganymed.imib.
rwth-aachen.de/deserno/datasets_en.php?SELECTED=00014#00014.
dataset. Accessed: 1-03-2016.
Deserno, T. M., Soiron, M., & De Oliveira, J. E. E. (2012). Texture patterns
extracted from digitizes mammograms of different BI-RADS classes. Image
Retrieval in Medical Applications project , 1 .
Dong, A., & Wang, B. (2009). Feature selection and analysis on mammogram
classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on
Communications, Computers and Signal Processing (pp. 731–735). IEEE.
Ergin, S., & Kilinc, O. (2015). A new feature extraction framework based on
wavelets for breast cancer diagnosis. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 51 ,
171–182.
Gedik, N. (2016). A new feature extraction method based on multi-resolution
representations of mammograms. Applied Soft Computing, 44 , 128–133.
Jain, A., Nandakumar, K., & Ross, A. (2005). Score normalization in
multimodal biometric systems. Pattern recognition, 38 , 2270–2285.

25

Jenifer, S., Parasuraman, S., & Kadirvelu, A. (2016). Contrast enhancement and
brightness preserving of digital mammograms using fuzzy clipped contrastlimited adaptive. Applied Soft Computing, 42 , 167–177.
Kamarainen, J. K., Kyrki, V., & Kälviäinen, H. (2006). Invariance properties of
Gabor filter-based features - Overview and applications. IEEE Transactions
on Image Processing, 15 , 1088–1099.
Kao, W. C., Hsu, M. C., & Yang, Y. Y. (2010). Local contrast enhancement
and adaptive feature extraction for illumination-invariant face recognition.
Pattern Recognition, 43 , 1736–1747.
Khan, S., Hussain, M., Aboalsamh, H., Mathkour, H., Bebis, G., & Zakariah, M.
(2016). Optimized Gabor features for mass classification in mammography.
Applied Soft Computing, 44 , 267–280.
Laadjel, M., Al-Maadeed, S., & Bouridane, A. (2015). Combining Fisher locality
preserving projections and passband DCT for efficient palmprint recognition.
Neurocomputing, 152 , 179–189.
Leena Jasmine, J. S., Govardhan, A., & Baskaran, S. (2009). Microcalcification
detection in digital mammograms based on wavelet analysis and neural
networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control,
Automation, Communication and Energy Conservation (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Liu, H., Li, J., & Wong, L. (2002). A comparative study on feature selection and
classification methods using gene expression profiles and proteomic patterns.
Genome Informatics, 13 , 51–60.
Mudigonda, N. R., Rangayyan, R. M., & Desautels, J. E. L. (2000). Gradient
and texture analysis for the classification of mammographic masses. IEEE
Transactions on Medical Imaging, 19 , 1032–1043.
Mudigonda, N. R., Rangayyan, R. M., & Desautels, J. E. L. (2001). Detection
of breast masses in mammograms by density slicing and texture flow-field
analysis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 20 , 1215–1227.
Muramatsu, C., Hara, T., Endo, T., & Fujita, H. (2016). Breast mass
classification on mammograms using radial local ternary patterns. Computers
in Biology and Medicine, 72 , 43–53.
Nandi, R. J., Nandi, A. K., Rangayyan, R. M., & Scutt, D. (2006). Genetic
programming and feature selection for classification of breast masses in
mammograms. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Annual International
Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 3021–3024).
IEEE.
Nanni, L., Brahnam, S., Ghidoni, S., Menegatti, E., & Barrier, T. (2013).
Different approaches for extracting information from the co-occurrence
matrix. PLOS ONE , 8 , e83554.
26

Nanni, L., Brahnam, S., & Lumini, A. (2012). A very high performing system
to discriminate tissues in mammograms as benign and malignant. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39 , 1968–1971.
Ojala, T., Pietikainen, M., & Maenpaa, T. (2002). Multiresolution gray-scale
and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns. IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24 , 971–987.
Ojansivu, V., & Heikkilä, J. (2008). Blur insensitive texture classification using
local phase quantization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Image and Signal Processing (pp. 236–243). Springer.
Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Martı́, J., Pérez, E., Pont, J., Denton, E. R. E.,
& Zwiggelaar, R. (2010). A review of automatic mass detection and
segmentation in mammographic images. Medical Image Analysis, 14 , 87–
110.
Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Martı́, R., Pont, J., Pérez, E., Denton, E. R. E.,
& Zwiggelaar, R. (2008). A novel breast tissue density classification
methodology. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine,
12 , 55–65.
Oliver, A., Lladó, X., Freixenet, J., & Martı́, J. (2007). False positive reduction
in mammographic mass detection using local binary patterns. In Proceedings
of the 10th Springer International Conference on Medical Image Computing
and Computer-assisted Intervention (pp. 286–293). Springer.
Oliver, A., Torrent, A., Lladó, X., Tortajada, M., Tortajada, L., Sentı́s, M.,
Freixenet, J., & Zwiggelaar, R. (2012). Automatic microcalcification and
cluster detection for digital and digitised mammograms. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 28 , 68–75.
Ouanan, H., Ouanan, M., & Aksasse, B. (2015). Gabor-HOG features based
face recognition scheme. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, 15 , 331–335.
Panetta, K., Zhou, Y., Agaian, S., & Jia, H. (2011). Nonlinear unsharp
masking for mammogram enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Information
Technology in Biomedicine, 15 , 918–928.
Peng, W., Mayorga, R. V., & Hussein, E. M. A. (2016). An automated
confirmatory system for analysis of mammograms. Computer Methods and
Programs in Biomedicine, 125 , 134–144.
Petroudi, S., & Brady, M. (2011). Breast density characterization using texton
distributions. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE International Conference on
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 5004–5007). IEEE.

27

Rabottino, G., Mencattini, A., Salmeri, M., Caselli, F., & Lojacono, R.
(2008). Mass contour extraction in mammographic images for breast cancer
identification. In Proceedings of the 16th IMEKO TC4 Symposium - Exploring
New Frontiers of Instrumentation and Methods for Electrical and Electronic
Measurements.
Rangayyan, R. M., Ayres, F. J., & Desautels, J. E. L. (2007). A review of
computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer: Toward the detection of subtle
signs. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 344 , 312–348.
Rouhi, R., Jafari, M., Kasaei, S., & Keshavarzian, P. (2015). Benign and
malignant breast tumors classification based on region growing and CNN
segmentation. Expert Systems with Applications, 42 , 990–1002.
Shah, S. (2016).
Statistics of breast cancer in India.
http://www.
breastcancerindia.net/statistics/stat_global.html. Accessed: 1-032016.
Shanthi, S., & Murali Bhaskaran, V. (2012). Computer aided detection and
classification of mammogram using self-adaptive resource allocation network
classifier. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pattern
Recognition, Informatics and Medical Engineering (pp. 284–289). IEEE.
Srisuk, S., & Petpon, A. (2008). A Gabor quotient image for face recognition
under varying illumination. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
Visual Computing (Advances in Visual Computing) (pp. 511–520). Springer.
Sundaram, M., Ramar, K., Arumugam, N., & Prabin, G. (2011). Histogram
modified local contrast enhancement for mammogram images. Applied Soft
Computing, 11 , 5809–5816.
Tahmasbi, A., Saki, F., & Shokouhi, S. B. (2011). Classification of benign
and malignant masses based on Zernike moments. Computers in Biology and
Medicine, 41 , 726–735.
Wajid, S. K., & Hussain, A. (2015). Local energy-based shape histogram
feature extraction technique for breast cancer diagnosis. Expert Systems with
Applications, 42 , 6990–6999.
Xu, X., Quan, C., & Ren, F. (2015). Facial expression recognition based
on Gabor Wavelet transform and Histogram of Oriented Gradients. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Automation (pp. 2117–2122). IEEE.
Yeh, S. T. (2002). Using trapezoidal rule for the area under a curve calculation.
In Proceedings of the 27th Annual SAS R User Group International .
Zeng, Y., Luo, J., & Lin, S. (2009). Classification using Markov blanket for
feature selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Granular Computing (pp. 743–747). IEEE.
28

