Author
Listed:
- Mehmet Bahadır Çetinkaya
- Hakan Duran
- Thomas Hanne
Abstract
Biomedical image analysis based on metaheuristic algorithms is one of the most important research areas encountered in recent years. Due to the low contrast differences between the diseased areas and the image background in high-contrast biomedical images, effective methods are required to diagnose diseases with high accuracy. To overcome the difficulties encountered in this field, metaheuristic approaches may offer effective solutions due to their advantages such as the ability of converging to the global optimum, higher convergence rate, and having few control parameters. In this work, Jellyfish Search (JS), Marine Predators (MPA), Tunicate Swarm (TSA), Mayfly Optimization (MA), Chimp Optimization (ChOA), Slime Mould Optimization (SMA), Archimedes Optimization (AOA), and Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) algorithms, which are the most recently proposed metaheuristic algorithms in the literature, have been improved as clustering based in order to achieve vessel segmentation with high precision. Also, a detailed performance comparison of these algorithms has been realized for the rate of convergences, error values reached, CPU time, standard deviation, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F-score, and Wilcoxon rank sum-test. In order to present the compatibility of the results obtained with the literature, the performances of these novel algorithms have also been compared to that of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO), and Differential Evolution (DE) algorithms. The simulation results represent that each algorithm produces similar convergence and error performance. Also, it can be emphasized from the statistical analyses that the stability and robustness of each metaheuristic approach are quite adequate in separating the vessel pixels and the background pixels of a retinal image. In general, this paper proves that although having fewer number of control parameters, the JS, MPA, TSA, MA, ChOA, SMA, AOA, and EO algorithms produce similar but a bit better results in terms of image segmentation when compared to PSO, GWO, and DE algorithms.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hin:jnlmpe:4639208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mohamed Abdelhakeem (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.hindawi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.