Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Block diagram of the proposed brain tumor gradation method.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Detail wavelet subbands of two simulated images having different textures.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Detail wavelet subbands of two T1-weighted brain MR images with high grade (top) and low grade (bottom) tumors.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Histograms of co-occurrence of wavelet coefficients for different subbands (top row: Horizontal, middle row: Vertical, and bottom row: Diagonal) of top image of Fig 2.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Histograms of co-occurrence of wavelet coefficients for different subbands (top row: Horizontal, middle row: Vertical, and bottom row: Diagonal) of top image of Fig 3.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Histograms of co-occurrence of wavelet coefficients for different subbands (top row: Horizontal, middle row: Vertical, and bottom row: Diagonal) of bottom image of Fig 3.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 1.

Textural features obtained from individual subband co-occurrence and multispectral co-occurrence for two example images.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Textural features obtained from individual subband co-occurrence and multispectral co-occurrence for brain images with high and low grade tumors.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 7.

Comparative performance analysis of different decomposition levels of wavelet analysis using ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

ROC curve obtained using leave-one-out cross-validation for different decomposition levels of wavelet analysis.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Comparative performance analysis of the proposed fusion method over individual sequences for ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

ROC curve obtained using leave-one-out cross-validation for the proposed fusion method and individual sequences.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Comparative performance analysis of different fusion approaches using ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

ROC curve obtained using leave-one-out cross-validation for different fusion approaches.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Comparative performance analysis of the proposed multispectral co-occurrence matrix and multi-scale GLCM based methods using ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

ROC curve obtained using leave-one-out cross-validation for the proposed multispectral co-occurrence matrix and multi-scale GLCM based methods.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Table 3.

Performance analysis of different algorithms using leave-one-out cross-validation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Accuracy and AUC of different algorithms for ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Sensitivity and specificity of different algorithms for ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

PPV and NPV of different algorithms for ten-fold cross-validation.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 15.

Calculation of multispectral co-occurrence matrix for all detail wavelet subbands at four directions.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Illustration of the displacement vector in 3-D space.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Table 7.

Displacement vector for multispectral co-occurrence matrices.

More »

Table 7 Expand