Mri brain tumour detection by histogram and segmentation

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (IJECET)
ISSN 0976 – 6464(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), pp. 55-68
IJECET
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijecet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5930 (Calculated by GISI) ©IAEME
www.jifactor.com

MRI BRAIN TUMOUR DETECTION BY HISTOGRAM AND
SEGMENTATION BY MODIFIED GVF MODEL

Selvaraj.D1, Dhanasekaran.R 2
1
Research Scholar, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering
Sathyabama University, Chennai, India
2
Director, Research, Syed Ammal Engineering College, Ramanathapuram, India
Email: 1mails2selvaraj@yahoo.com, 2rdhanashekar@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

A new method of image segmentation is proposed in this paper which combines
histogram thresholding, modified gradient vector field and morphological operators. The non-
brain regions are removed using mathematical morphological operators. Histogram
thresholding is used to detect whether the brain is normal or abnormal i.e., it is used to detect
the suspicious region or tumor. If the brain is abnormal then the modified GVF is used to
detect the contour of the tumor. Else, if the brain is normal then no need to proceed to the
segmentation step. Therefore, the time consumed for segmentation can be minimized. The
proposed method is computationally efficient. It is successfully applied to many MRI brain
images to detect the tumor and its geometrical dimension. Finally the performance measures
are validated with those of human expert segmentation.

Key words: Skull stripping, Brain segmentation, Tumour segmentation, MRI brain image,
Morphological operator, Feature extraction

I. INTRODUCTION

Medical imaging refers to the techniques and processes used to create images of the
human body to reveal, diagnose or examine disease [3]. Medical imaging is considered to be
the most significant advancement of all the contemporary medical technologies. The modern
imaging technologies are Computed Tomography, Positron emission tomography (PET),
Ultrasound, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and more. Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) is a popular means for noninvasive imaging of the human body. While MRI does not
use harmful X-rays, an MRI “image” shows more detail than images generated by X-ray,
computerized tomography (CT) [4]. MRI provides images with the exceptional contrast
between various organs and tumors that is essential for medical diagnosis and therapy. The
55

International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering & Technology (IJECET), ISSN
0976 – 6464(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6472(Online) Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), © IAEME

advantages of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over other imaging modalities are its high
spatial resolution and excellent discrimination of soft tissues. On the other hand, MRI
provides a noninvasive method to get angiography and functional images and till now no side
effect of MRI has been reported.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an advanced medical imaging technique providing
rich information about the human soft tissue anatomy. MRI technique has been widely used
in the study of neural disorders. Tissue classification and segmentation are the key steps
toward quantifying the shape and volume of different types of tissues, which are used for
three- dimensional display and feature analysis to facilitate diagnosis and therapy. A typical
MRI of a patient includes multi-model information in three dimensions. Generally, each slice
has three different types of image (T1-weighted, T2- weighted and Proton Density-weighted),
which have different contrast affected by selection of pulse sequence parameters [5]. Brain is
one of the most complex organs of a human body so it is a vexing problem to discriminate its
various components and analyze it constituents. Common image processing and analysis
techniques provide ineffective and futile outcomes. Magnetic resonance images are very
common for brain image analysis. Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) of the brain are
invaluable tools to help physicians diagnose and treat various brain diseases including stroke,
cancer, and epilepsy. The MRI of the normal brain can be divided into three regions other
than the background, white matter (WM), gray matter (GM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or
vasculature [6].
A great number of segmentation methods are available in the literature to segment images
according to various criteria such as for example gray level, color, or texture. Image
segmentation was, is and will be a major research topic for many image-processing
researchers. Segmentation of brain MRI’s is an important image processing procedure for
both the physician and the brain researcher. The brain MRI offers a valuable method to
perform pre-and-post surgical evaluations, which are keys to define procedures and to verify
their effects. Therefore, it is necessary to develop algorithms to obtain robust image
segmentation.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: A brief review of researches relevant to the
MRI brain tumor detection and segmentation technique is presented in section 2. In section 3,
the overview of the proposed method is discussed. Section 4 gives the concept of brain tumor
detection using bimodal histogram technique and also gives the concept of MGVF. The
detailed experimental results and discussions are given in section 5. The conclusions are
summed up in section 6.

II. RELATED WORKS

A plentiful of researches has been proposed by researchers for the MRI brain image
segmentation and tumor detection techniques. A brief review of some of the recent researches
is presented here.
Kharrat, A. et al. [7] have developed a methodology, where the brain tumor has been
detected from the cerebral MRI images. The methodology includes three stages:
enhancement, segmentation and classification. An enhancement process has been performed
to enhance the quality of images as well as to reduce the risk of distinct regions fusion in the
segmentation stage. Also, a mathematical morphology has been used to increase the contrast
in MRI images. Then, the MRI images have been decomposed by applying a Wavelet
Transform in the segmentation process. Finally, the suspicious regions or tumors have been

56


extracted by using a k-means algorithm. The feasibility and the performance of the proposed
technique have been revealed from their experimental results on brain images.
Belma Dogdas et a l. [8] have presented a technique for segmentation of skull and scalp in
T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of the human head. The method uses
mathematical morphological operations to generate realistic models of the skull, scalp, and
brain that are suitable for electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography
(MEG) source modeling. They segment the brain using the Brain Surface Extractor
algorithm; using this, they can ensure that the brain does not intersect the skull segmentation.
They generated a scalp mask using a combination of thresholding and mathematical
morphology. Finally, they mask the results with the scalp and brain volumes to ensure closed
and nonintersecting skull boundaries.
Inan Gule et al. [9] have presented an image segmentation system to automatically
segment and label brain MR images to show normal and abnormal brain tissues using self-
organizing maps (SOM) and knowledge-based expert systems. The feature vector is used as
an input to the SOM. SOM is used to over segment images and a knowledge-based expert
system is used to join and label the segments.
John Chiverton et al. [10] have described an automatic statistical morphology skull
stripper (SMSS) that uniquely exploits a statistical self-similarity measure and a 2-D brain
mask to delineate the brain. The result of applying SMSS to 20 MRI data set volumes,
including scans of both adult and infant subjects was also described. Quantitative
performance assessment was undertaken with the use of brain masks provided by a brain
segmentation expert. The performance was compared with an alternative technique known as
brain extraction tool. The results suggested that SMSS is capable of skull-stripping
neurological data with small amounts of over- and under-segmentation.
Wen-Feng Kuo et al. [11] have proposed a robust medical image segmentation technique,
which combines watershed segmentation and the competitive Hopfield clustering network
(CHCN) algorithm to minimize undesirable over-segmentation. A region merging method is
presented, which is based on employing the region adjacency graph (RAG) to improve the
quality of watershed segmentation. The performance of the proposed technique is evaluated
through quantitative and qualitative validation experiments on benchmark images.
A new unsupervised MRI segmentation method based on self-organizing feature map
was presented by Yan Li and Zheru Chi [13]. Their algorithm included extra spatial
information about a pixel region by using a Markov Random Field (MRF) model. The MRF
term improved the segmentation results without extra data samples in the training set. The
cooperation of MRF into SOFM has shown its great potentials as MRF term models the
smoothness of the segmented regions. It verified that the neighboring pixels should have
similar segmentation assignment unless they are on the boundary of two distinct regions.
R. Mishra [12] has developed an efficient system, where the Brain Tumor has been
diagnosed with higher accuracy using artificial neural network. After the extraction of
features from MRI data by means of the wavelet packets, an artificial neural network has
been employed to find out the normal and abnormal spectra. Normally, the benefit of
wavelet packets is that it gives richest analysis when compared with the wavelet transforms
and thus adding more advantages to the performance of their proposed system. Moreover,
two cancer detection approaches have been discussed. The neural network system has been
trained using the Error Back Propagation Training Learning rule.

57


III. PROPOSED METHOD

The proposed method is composed of 4 major stages as shown in figure 1. The brain
extraction is a necessary step before segmentation. The pixels lying outside the brain contour
and which are not of interest share intensity with the structures of interest. By limiting the
segmentation to brain, the computation time is reduced. This extraction is done with the help
of mathematical morphological operator in stage1, as shown in figure 2(b). and 2D Gaussian
filter is applied to the skull stripped image to smoothen it. The smoothened image is shown
in figure 2(c).

Figure. 1. Proposed Method

In Stage2, the smoothened image is partitioned into 2 halves and the histograms of both
the images are subtracted to get the threshold values. If the threshold values are same then the
difference will be zero. so, it can be assumed that the image is normal image else, it is
proceeded to stage 3. In stage 3, an external force field is created around the abnormal image
using MGVF field model. The force vectors from 8-neighbouhood for each pixel is valued.
The pixel having the highest score is considered as seed pixel. Using the seed pixel, a region
is grown using region growing algorithm and later, in stage4, the area of tumour is calculated.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure. 2. (a) Input Image (b) Skull Stripped Image (c) Smoothened Image

58


A. Histogram Thresholding
Histogram is one of the most uncomplicated image segmentation process since thresholding
is fast and economical in computation and they require only one pass through the pixels. The
histogram of an image represents the relative frequency of occurrence of the various gray
levels in the image. This is useful in setting a threshold value to detect the abnormal region.
In our proposed method, after smoothening the skull stripped brain image, it is divided into
2 equal halves along its central axis assuming the brain image is symmetric. The histogram is
plotted between the number of pixels and pixel intensity for both the halves. Finally the
difference between the two histograms is taken and the resultant difference is plotted. if the
image is abnormal then it is proceeded to the next stage. Else, it is assumed the brain is
normal and the computation time for segmentation can be minimized.

B. Gradient Vector Flow Model
GVF fields are generated by diffusing the gradient vectors of a gray level or binary edge
map, derived from an image [15, 16]. The gradient vector flow field is defined to be vector
field. (as in figure 3). V(x, y) = [u(x, y), v(x, y)] (1)

Fig.3. Two-component vector definition for GVF field model

A GVF model as a force field of vectors [15] and they minimized the following energy
function to derive the GVF field.
E= ∫∫ µ |∇V|²+|∇f|²|V-∇f|²dxdy (2)
Where, |∇V|² = (u²x+ u²y+ v²x+v²y).
The parameter ‘µ’ is a regularization parameter governing the tradeoff between the first
and the second term in the integrand. Let a point in 'n' dimensional space Rn can be defined
by X=(x1, x2, x3, …..xn). The scalar function at X is defined by f(X) = f(x1, x2, x3, …..xn) and
the vector function at X is defined by v(X) = (v1(x1, x2, x3, …..xn), v2(x1, x2, x3,
…..xn)…………vn(x1, x2, x3, …..xn)). Assume these functions are defined in a bounded

sobolev space ܹଶ ( )[17] that minimize the following function
ଶ
domain Ω⊂R with ∂Ω as its boundary.GVF is defined as the vector function v(x) in the

‫|ݒ∇|ߤ ׬‬ଶ + |∇݂|ଶ |v − ∇݂|ଶ ݀‫ݔ‬ (3)

ଶ
‫∑ ߤ ׬‬௡ ∑௡ ቀడ௫ ೕ ቁ + ∑௡ ቀ‫ ݒ‬௜ − డ௙ ቁ ∑௡ ቀ డ௙ ቁ ݀‫ݔ‬
డ௩ ೔ ଶ ଶ
௜ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ ௜ୀଵ ௜ୀଵ డ௫ ೔
డ௫ ೔
(4)

form as, ‫ ܨ ׬ = ܬ‬ቀ‫ݔ‬ଵ , . . ‫ ݔ‬௡ , ‫ ݒ‬ଵ , . . , ‫ ݒ‬௡ , . . భ , . . , . ೙ , . . . భ , . . ೙ቁ ݀‫ݔ‬
The above equation (4) can be written in simple
డ௩ భ డ௩ భ డ௩ ೙ డ௩ ೙
డ௫ డ௫ డ௫ డ௫
From calculus of variations [18], J is stationary if and only if its first variation vanishes i.e.,

δJ = 0 (5)

59


For every permissible variation ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ ∈ ܹଶ ( ), i=1,2,……n. By applying the laws of
ଶ

variation[24], 'J' can be derived as,

‫ݔ‬ଵ , … . ‫ ݔ‬௡ , ‫ ݒ‬ଵ , … . , ‫ ݒ‬௡ , … . డ௫భ , … … ,
డ௩ భ

ߜ‫ۇ ܨ ׬ ߜ = ܬ‬ ‫ݔ݀ ۊ‬
. డ௫೙ , … . . డ௫భ , … . . డ௫೙‫ی‬
డ௩ భ డ௩ ೙ డ௩ ೙
‫ۉ‬

௡ ௡ ௡
߲‫ܨ‬ ߲‫ܨ‬ ߲‫ ݒ‬௜
= න ቎෍ ௜ ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ + ෍ ෍ ௜ ߜ‫ݒ‬௝௜ ݀‫ ݔ‬቏ , ቆ‫ ݒ‬௜ ≡ ௝ ቇ
߲‫ݒ‬ ߲‫ݒ‬௝ ߲‫ݔ‬
௜ୀଵ ௜ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ

= ∑௡ ൤‫׬‬ ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ ݀‫׬ + ݔ‬ ∑௡
௝ୀଵ డ௩ ೔ ߜ‫ݒ‬௝ ݀‫ݔ‬ ൨
డி డி ௜
௜ୀଵ డ௩ ೔ ೕ
Using integration by parts, we have
௡ ௡ ௡
߲‫ܨ‬ ߲ ߲‫ܨ‬ ߲‫ܨ‬
ߜ‫ = ܬ‬෍ ቎න ௜ ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ ݀ − ෍ න ൬ ௝ ൰ ௜ ߜ‫ ݒ‬௝ ݀‫ݔ‬ + ෍ න ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ ߟ௜ ݀ܵ ቏
߲‫ݒ‬ ߲‫ݒ߲ ݔ‬௝ ߲‫ݒ‬௝௜
௜ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ ப

where, ηi is the projection of outward normal unit vector η along xi axis at ∂Ω and dS
represents the element of area on the boundary ∂Ω. After rearranging the above equation, we
get,

ߜ‫∑ = ܬ‬௡ ‫ ׬‬൤డ௩೔ − ∑௡ డ௫ೕ ൬ ൰൨ ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ ݀‫∑ + ݔ‬௡ ∑௡ ‫׬‬ ߟ௜ ߲‫ ݒ‬௜ ݀ܵ = 0
డி డ డி డி
௜ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ డ௩ೕ
೔ ௜ୀଵ ௝ୀଵ డ డ௩ೕ
೔

Since variations of ‫ ݒ‬௜ , i=1,2,3,…..,n are independent of each other, it follows that all the
coefficients of ߜ‫ ݒ‬௜ in the integrals must each vanish identically in Ω, giving n scalar Euler
equation.

− ∑௡ ൬ ൰=0
డி డ డி
డ௩ ೔ ௝ୀଵ డ௫ ೕ డ௩ೕ
೔ (6)
and n boundary conditions
∑௡ ൬ ൰ ߟ௜ = 0
డி
௝ୀଵ డ௩ೕ
೔ (7)
Where, I =1, 2, ….., n. Substituting the definition of F in equation (5) and after some

డ௙ ଶ
algebra, we obtain the Euler equations and boundary conditions for GVF as follows.
ߤ ∑௡ − ቀ‫ ݒ‬௜ − డ௫ೕ ቁ ቀడ௫ೕ ቁ = 0
డమ௩೔ డ௙
௝ୀଵ మ
డ൫௫ ೔ ൯
(8)

∑௡
௝ୀଵ డ௫ ೕ ߟ = 0 on ∂Ω
డ௩ ೔
௜
(9)
where i=1,2, …. , n . equations (8) and (9) can be written in a simple form using a vector
notation as,
µ∇²v-(v-∇f)| ∇f|2 = 0 (10)
The above equation (10) can be written as
µ∇²u-(u-fx) (fx² + fy²) = 0 (11)
µ∇²v-(v-fy) (fx² + fy²) = 0 (12)

60


where ∇² is the laplacian operator. In homogenous region, I(x, y) is a constant], the second
term in each equation is zero because the gradient of f(x, y) is zero. Therefore within such
region, ‘u’ and ‘v’ are determined by the laplacian equation. Equations 11 and 12 can be
solved by treating ‘u’ and ‘v’ as function of time stated by Chenyang Xu and J.L Prince, [15]
as,
ut(x,y,t) = µ∇²u(x,y,t)-[u(x,y,t)- fx(x, y)].[fx(x, y)²+ fy(x,y)²] (13)
vt(x,y,t) = µ∇²v(x,y,t)-[v(x,y,t)- fy(x, y)].[fy(x, y)²+ fy(x,y)²] (14)
The equations 14 and 15 can be rewritten as ,
ut(x,y,t)=µ∇²u(x,y,t)-b(x,y)u(x,y,t)+c1(x,y)] (15)
vt(x,y,t)=µ∇²v(x,y,t)- b(x,y)v(x,y,t)+ c²(x,y)] (16)
Where, b(x,y)= fx(x,y)²+fy(x,y)²
c1(x,y)= b(x,y) fx(x,y), c²(x,y)= b(x,y) fy(x,y).
To step up the iterative solution, let the indices be i, j and ‘n’ correspond to x, y and ‘t’
respectively. Spacing between pixels can be ∆x and ∆y and the time step for each iteration be
∆t. Then the required partial derivatives can be approximated as, ut=1/∆t(ui,jn+1 - ui,jn )
n+1 n
vt=1/∆t(vi,j - vi,j )
Substituting these approximations in to equations (15) and (16) gives the iterative solution
to GVF. The value of u and v for each pixel is substituted in to equation (2) to get the energy
value E in each iteration. Models based on GVF field can approach object boundaries even if
the initial contour is located far from them. However these models still require human
interaction. We modify the existing external force field for use in an automatic seed selection
and region growing process.

C. Modified GVF Field Model
A Four component field [k(x,y), l(x,y), m(x′,y′), n(x′,y′)]′ is defined first where k, l, m, n
represents the amplitudes (i.e., projections) in the x, y, x′, y′ axes (as shown in figure 5)

Fig. 4. Four-component vector definition for EGVF field model

Here (x, y) and (x′, y′) form 2 separate Orthogonal co-ordinate Systems with a rotation of
45º. By Extending the GVF field, the force field can be given as
V(x, y) = [V1(x,y), (V2(x, y))]′=[[k,l], [m, n]]′ (17)
V1(x, y) = [k(x, y), l(x, y)]
V2(x, y) = [m(x, y), n(x, y)]
The equation 16 minimizes the energy function as,
E=∫∫µ|∇V1|²+|∇f|²|V1-∇f|²dxdy+∫∫µ|∇V2|²+|∇g|²|V2-∇g|²dx′dy′ (18)

61


Where,∇f = (Ix, Iy), ∇g = (Ix′, Iy′) are the gradients of Image I in (x, y) and (x′, y′) co-
ordinate Systems. The force vector field V(x, y) can be solved from the following Euler
equations by applying calculus of variations to the energy function.
µ∇²k-(k-Ix) |∇f|² = 0 (19)
µ∇²l-(l-Iy) |∇f|² = 0 (20)
µ∇²m-(m-Ix′) |∇g|² = 0 (21)
µ∇²n-(n-Iy′) |∇g|² = 0 (22)
where, ∇² represents the Laplacian Operator. We can iteratively solve these equations by
considering the force vectors (k, l, m, n)’s as function of time n. The time step is simply set to
Therefore we get the following iterative equations.
kn+1 = kn+µ∇²kn-(kIx) |∇f|2 (23)
ln+1 = ln+µ∇²ln-(l-Ix) |∇f|² (24)
mn+1 = mn+µ∇²mn-(m-Ix) |∇f|² (25)
nn+1 = nn+µ∇²nn-(n-Ix) |∇f|² (26)
The initial conditions are set to kο=Ix, lο = Iy, mο=Ix′, nο = Iy′ The values of k, l, m and n for
each pixel (x, y) are substituted in to Equation (17) to get energy value ‘E’ in each iteration.

D.Seed selection Process
To search the seeds, we score the status of force vectors from 8-neighborhoods for each
pixel. Basically, the score counts the number of neighboring pixels whose force vectors do
not point inwards to the considered pixel. All pixels have seed selection scores ranging from
0 to 8. Since the force direction generally indicates the gradient directions onwards object
boundary, pixels of higher scores will be chosen as the seeds.

E.Region Growing Process
The region growing approach is as follows,
1) Calculate the gray level difference between the seed pixel and the average of pixels
surrounding the seed pixel. Let it be ∇.
2)Region is grown from the seed pixel by adding in neighbouring pixels whose value lies
within the ∇ value, increasing the size of the region.
3)When the growth of one region stops, we simply choose another seed pixel that does not
belong to any other region and start again.
4)This whole process is continued until all pixels belong to same region.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

we have presented a technique for segmentation and detection of pathological tissues
(tumor) from magnetic resonance (MR) images of brain with the help of Histogram, modified
gradient vector flow field model and region growing. The proposed technique is designed for
supporting the tumor detection in brain images with tumor and without tumor. The obtained
experimental results shows that MGVF model can also be used in MRI brain image
segmentation.
The proposed method is implemented in normal brain image and the corresponding skull
stripped image is shown in figure 5(b) and 5(d). When we compare the histogram plotted for
both the sides, they are not symmetrical. The histogram of the right side brain has more
intensity when compared to left hand side. This indicates that there may be a tumour on the
right hand side of the brain.

62


Fig 5(a) Input Image Fig 5(b) Skull stripped

Fig 5(c) Input Image Fig 5(d) Skull stripped

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Partitioned image of Skull stripped brain image, (a) Left Part (b) Right Part

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 7. Histogram of (a) left side of the brain, (b) Right side of brain
(c) Difference between 2 histogram

63


Since the two histograms are not same, it can be assumed that the image is abnormal. so,
MGVF model is applied to skull stripped image to form the contour near the abnormal
region. The image is diffused till the energy curve is saturated as shown in figure 8.
After several iterations, the grey level of the pixels is diffused for scoring to find the seeds.
In the figure 9, we can see the arrows are facing outwards i.e., the force vector field is
outwards. so, the force moves from the centre of the abnormal region towards the boundary.
The image after region growing is shown in figure 10 (a). finally the tumour segmented
image is shown in figure 10 (b).

Fig 8. Energy Value Curve

Fig. 9. External force field from seed pixel

Fig 10 (a) Image after region growing (b) Image after extracting tumour region

64


Table 1 Experimental Output
Area of
Input Image Tumor
Tumour
Image No (Sq.
inch)

AN1 0.009987

AN2 0.011092

AN3 0.00968

AN4 0.00988

AN5 0.01042

AN6 0.00997

AN7 0.009995

The area of an image is the total number of pixels present in the area which can be calculated
in the length units by multiplying the number of pixels with the dimension of one pixel. In
our proposed method, the size of the input image is 192x4=198. Therefore, the horizontal
resolution is 1/192 inch and the vertical resolution is 1/198 inch. The area of single pixel is
equal to (1/192)*(1/198) square inch.
A=(1/192)*(1/198)
Area of the tumor = A * total number of pixels
= 2.63x10-5* 380
= 0.00999 sq. inch

65


PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
The proposed algorithm is applied to MRI brain tumor images and the performance of the
algorithm is evaluated using the following measures.

ܵ‫ = ܫ‬ோ௘௙ାௌ௘௚
ଶ(ோ௘௙∩ௌ௘௚)
Similarity Index (SI):
(27)

തതതതതത
ܱ‫= ܲܧ‬ × 100
(ோ௘௙ ∩ௌ௘௚)
Over Estimated Percentage (OEP):

ோ௘௙
(28)

തതതതത
ܷ‫= ܲܧ‬ × 100
(ோ௘௙∩ௌ௘௚)
Under Estimated Percentage (UEP):

ோ௘௙
(29)

‫= ܲܧܥ‬ × 100
(ோ௘௙∩ௌ௘௚)
Correctly Estimated Percentage (CEP):
ோ௘௙
(30)

In equations (27) to (30) Ref denotes the volume of the reference and Seg denotes the volume
of the segmented image.
The Experimental Output is tabulated in table 1 and the performance measure for
segmented image is listed in table 2.

Table 2 Performance Measure
Performance
SI OEP UEP CEP
Input
Image
AN1 93.2 6.6 10.8 97.6
AN2 90.7 5.5 4.6 96.3
AN3 94.9 4.7 5.4 98.8
AN4 96.0 7.3 4.6 94.6
AN5 93.2 6.3 8.8 96.3
AN6 95.7 6.2 2.8 91.4
AN7 96.1 4.1 3.2 94.3

REFERENCES

[1] Selvaraj.,D., Dhanasekaran,R., 2010 “ Novel approach for segmentation of brain
magnetic resonance imaging using intensity based thresholding”, 2010 IEEE international
conference on communication control and computing technologies, pp 502-507.
[2] Selvaraj.,D., Dhanasekaran,R., 2010 “ Segmenting internal brain nuclei in MRI brain
image using morphological operators”, 2010 International conference on computational
intelligence and software engineering, pp 1-4.

66


[3] Amit Shrivastava, Monika Shinde, S.S. Gornale and Pratap Lawande, 2007,"An Approach-Effect
of an Exponential Distribution on different medical images," International Journal of Computer
Science and Network Security, Vol.7, No.9.
[4] Z. Cho, J. Jones, M. Singh,1993 “Foundations of Medical Imaging”, (New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons,).
[5] Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi, Hamid Soltanian Zadeh, Caro Lucas, 2002, "Unsupervised MRI
segmentation with spatial connectivity", proceedings of SPIE International symposium on
Medical Imaging, San Diego, CA, 23-28.
[6] Jagath C. Rajapakse, Jay N. Giedd, and Judith L. Rapoport, 1997, "Statistical Approach to
Segmentation of Single-Channel Cerebral MR Images", IEEE transactions on medical imaging,.
vol. 16, no. 2.
[7] Kharrat, A.; Benamrane, N.; Ben Messaoud, M.; Abid, M.; 2007, "Detection of brain tumor in
medical images", Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Signals, Circuits and
Systems (SCS), Medenine, pp: 1 - 6.
[8] Belma Dogdas, David W. Shattuck, Richard M. Leahy,2005, "Segmentation of skull and scalp in
3-D human MRI using mathematical morphology", Human Brain Mapping, Vol: 26, No:4, pp:
273 - 285.
[9] Inan Güler, Ayşe Demirhan, Rukiye Karakıs, 2009, "Interpretation of MR images using self-
organizing maps and knowledge-based expert systems", Digital Signal Processing, Vol: 19 , No:
4,pp: 668-677.
[10] John Chiverton, Kevin Wells, Emma Lewis, Chao Chen, Barbara Podda, Declan Johnson
2007,,"Statistical morphological skull stripping of adult and infant MRI data", Computers in
Biology and Medicine, Vol: 37 , No:3, pp: 342-357.
[11] Wen-Feng Kuo, Chi-Yuan Lin, Yung-Nien Sun, 2008,"Brain MR images segmentation using
statistical ratio: Mapping between watershed and competitive Hopfield clustering network
algorithms", Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Vol: 91, No: 3, pp: 191-198.
[12] R. Mishra,2010, "MRI based brain tumor detection using wavelet packet feature and artificial
neural networks", Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop on Emerging
Trends in Technology.
[13] Yan Li and Zheru Chi,2005, "MR Brain Image Segmentation Based on Self-Organizing Map
Network", International Journal of Information Technology, vol. 11, No. 8,.
[14] D.L.Collins,A.P.Zijdenbos, .Kollokian,C .J.Holmes and A.C.Evans, 1998, "Design and
construction of a realistic digital brain phantom" in IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging,
Vol.,17, No.3, PP.463-468.
[15] Chenyang Xu and J.L Prince, 1998, ‘Snakes, shapes and gradient vector flow’, IEEE Transactions
on image processing, Volume 7, No.3, page 359.
[16] Chenyang Xu and J.L Prince, 2002, ‘Generalized gradient vector flow external forces for active
contours’, ECCV 2002, LNVS 2352, page 517
[17] K.E Gustafson, partial diffential equations, Newyork, John wiley & sons, 2nd edition.
[18] R.Courant and D.hilbert, Method of mathemattical physics, Volume 1, Newyork, Interscience.
[19] R.C.Gonzalez and R.E Woods, 2010, Digital image processing, Pearson Education.
[20]Bhavna Sharma and Prof K. Venugopalan, “Performance Comparison Of Standard Segmentation
Methods For Identification Of Hematoma In Brain CT Scan Images”, International journal of
Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 126 - 134, Published
by IAEME.
[21]J. Mohan, V. Krishnaveni and Yanhui Guo, “Performance Analysis Of Neutrosophic Set
Approach Of Median Filtering For Mri Denoising”, International journal of Electronics and
Communication Engineering &Technology (IJECET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 148 - 163,
Published by IAEME.

67


AUTHOR

D.Selvaraj is an Associate professor in the Department of ECE in Panimalar
Engg. college. His specialization in master degree was Medical Electronics
from Anna University. Currently he is pursuing his doctoral degree in
Sathyabama University, India. He has published 13 papers at various IEEE/
IETE conference and journals.

Dr.R.Dhanasekaran is currently the Director, Research, Syed Ammal
Engineering College, Ramanathapuram, India. He obtained his master degree
in Power Electronics from Anna University, India. He was awarded Ph.D in
Power Electronics from Anna University, India. He has vast teaching
experience of 11 years and 3 years in research. He has published more than
40 research papers in various refereed journals and IEEE/ACM conference
proceedings. His research interests includes Image Processing, EMI noise in
SMPS, Power Electronic circuits.

68

Mri brain tumour detection by histogram and segmentation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Mri brain tumour detection by histogram and segmentation (20)

More from iaemedu (20)

Mri brain tumour detection by histogram and segmentation