{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029431000654022238, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009156311314584695, 'mean_word_length': 5.923076923076923, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detection and classification of microcalcification from digital mammograms with firefly algorithm, extreme learning machine and non‐linear regression models: A comparison

In this study, abnormalities in medical images are analysed using three classifiers, and the results are compared. Breast cancer remains a major public health problem among women worldwide. Recently, many algorithms have evolved for the investigation of breast cancer diagnosis through medical imaging. A computer‐aided microcalcification detection method is proposed to categorise the nature of breast cancer as either benign or malignant from input mammogram images. The standard mammogram image corpus, the Mammogram Image Analysis Society database is utilised, and feature extraction is performed using five different wavelet families at level 4 and level 6 decomposition. The work is accomplished through firefly algorithm (FA), extreme learning machine (ELM) and least‐square‐based non‐linear regression (LSNLR) classifiers. The performance of the classifiers is compared by benchmark metrics, such as total error rate, specificity, sensitivity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, F1 score and the Matthews correlation coefficient. As validation of the classifier results, a kappa analysis is included to determine the agreement among classifiers. The LSNLR classifier attains a 3% to 7% improvement in average accuracy compared with the average classification accuracy of the FA (86.75%) and ELM (90.836%) classifiers.