Similarity measurement method for the classification of architecturally differentiated images

Computers and Biomedical Research

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-12

  Smith, Yoav ^c   Zajicek, Gershom ^c   Werman, Michael ^b   Pizov, Galina ^a   Sherman, Yoav ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; MEASUREMENT; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER;

EID: 0032998809     PISSN: 00104809     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/cbmr.1998.1500     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Kulkarni A. D. Artificial Neural Networks for Image Understanding. 1994;Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.
2. Watabe S., Hayashi H., Yamada Y., Miyaji K., Yabe S., Sotobata I., Iwata A., Suzumura N. Application of the Karhunen-Loeve expansion to evaluate regional cardiac excitation in body surface potential maps. J. Electrocardiol. 23:1990;33.
3. Lamothe R., Stroink G. Orthogonal expansions: their applicability to signal extraction in electrophysiological mapping data. Med. Biol. Eng. Comp. 29:1991;522.
4. Lux R. L. Karhunen-Loeve representation of ECG data. J. Electrocardiol. 25:1992;195.
5. Artioli E., Avanzolini G., Gnudi G. Extraction of discriminant features in postcardiosurgical intensive care units. Int. J. Biol. Med. Comp. 39:1995;349.
6. Laguna P., Moody G. B., Jane R., Caminal P., Mark R. G. Karhunen-Loeve transform as a tool to analyze the ST-segment. Comparison with QT interval. J. Electrocardiol. 28:1995;41.
7. Moghaddam B., Pentland A. Face Recognition Using View-Based and Modular Eigenspace for Identification and Inspection of Humans. July, 1994;SPIE Conference on Automatic Systems, San Diego.
8. Pentland A., Moggadam B., Starner T. View-Based and Modular Eigenspaces for Face Recognition. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. June, 1994;84-90.
9. Turk M., Pentland. Eigenfaces for recognition. J. Cog. Neurol. May 1991.
10. Pentland A., Picard R. W., Sclaroff S. M. I. T. Media Laboratory Perceptual Computing. Technical Report. Nov 1993.
11. Bibbo M., Bartels P., Pfeifer T., Thompson D., Minimo C., Davidson H. Belief network for grading prostate lesions. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 12:1993;124.
12. Ozdamar S., Sarikaya S., Yildiz L., Atilla M., Kandemir B., Yildiz S. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 28:1996;73.
13. Cookson M., Fleshner N., Soloway S., Fair W. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J. Urol. 157:1997;559.
14. Di-Loreto C., Fitzpatrick B., Underhill S., Kim D., Dytch H., Galera-Davidson, Bibbo M. Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 96:1991;70.
15. Bostwick D. Grading prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 102:1994;S38.
16. Minimo C., Bartels P., Kim D., Pfeifer T., Dytch H., Galera-Davidson, Bibbo M. Value of the cribriformity factor in grading carcinoma. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 13:1991;411.
17. Epstein J. Prostate Biopsy Interpretanon. Biopsy Interpretation Series. 1995;Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia.
18. Lessels M., Rodney A. Burnett observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum. Pathol. 28:1997;6.