Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
TRI-BCC: Tri-Level Breast Cancer Classification via Transfer Learning Networks with Histopathological Images Cover

TRI-BCC: Tri-Level Breast Cancer Classification via Transfer Learning Networks with Histopathological Images

Open Access
|Nov 2025

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Schematic illustration of the proposed TRI-BCC model.

Table 1.

Dataset description of BreakHis with image count.

Class typeSubtypeImage count
BenignAS444
FA1442
PT209
TA385
MalignantDC3450
LC626
MC792
PC561
Total7909
Table 2.

Stage-wise distribution of malignant subtypes.

Malignant subtypeStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4Stage 5Total
DC4607909706705603450
LC110160140110106626
MC160205190125112792
PC1051301459091561
Total835128514459958695429
Table 3.

Augmentation count after targeted augmentation techniques.

Class typeSubtypeOriginal countAugmented countTotal count
BenignAS444400844
FA144201442
PT209500709
TA385300685
Subtotal248012003680
MalignantDC345003450
LC6260626
MC7920792
PC5610561
Subtotal542905429
Total790909109
Fig. 2.

Flowchart of the proposed GWO algorithm.

Fig. 3.

Experimental results of the proposed TRI-BCC model for BC classification.

Table 4.

Efficiency analysis of the proposed TRI-BCC model for Level-I.

ClassesACCSPESENPREF1S
Benign99.2599.0198.7398.4598.18
Malignant98.8498.0699.0199.2799.49
Average99.0498.9598.6999.4998.47
Fig. 4.

Level-II analysis of the proposed TRI-BCC model for (a) Benign classes and (b) Malignant classes.

Fig 5.

Level-III analysis of the proposed TRI-BCC model for Malignant class stages.

Fig. 6.

Training and testing curve of the proposed TRI-BCC model (a) Accuracy curve; (b) Loss curve.

Table 5.

Comparative analysis of optimization algorithms based on DS and JS.

MetricsFFO [24]AO [25]BESO [26]GWO (ours)
Dice score0.820.850.870.91
Jaccard score0.760.790.810.87
Table 6.

Comparative evaluation of different ML classification models.

MethodsACCSPESENPREF1S
NB87.986.888.486.387.2
DT94.794.095.593.194.2
RF96.395.996.895.496.1
KNN89.589.090.288.789.1
RDT99.0498.998.699.498.4
Fig. 7.

Visual comparison of different optimization algorithms for segmentation.

Table 7.

Accuracy comparison: proposed model vs existing models.

AuthorsMethodsAccuracy
Rahman et al.U-Net + YOLO93.00 %
Abunasser et al.Fine-tuned networks98.28 %
Singh et al.Hybrid deep neural network96.42 %
Hirra et al.Pa-DBN-BC86.00 %
Proposed modelTRI-BCC model99.06 %
Language: English
Page range: 327 - 337
Submitted on: Dec 11, 2024
Accepted on: Sep 11, 2025
Published on: Nov 13, 2025
Published by: Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Measurement Science
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open

© 2025 Sridevi Rajalingam, Kavitha Maruthai, published by Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Measurement Science
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.