Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of the statistical analysis between each group inside each set and magnification

From: Fractal dimension analysis as an easy computational approach to improve breast cancer histopathological diagnosis

Set and Magnification Group Compared p-value Statistical Significance
BreakHis – 40x Benign vs. Malignant 0.0003 Yes
Benign vs. Ductal CA 0.0895 No
Benign vs. Lobular CA 0.0089 Yes
Benign vs. Mucinous CA < 0.0001 Yes
Benign vs. Papillary CA < 0.0001 Yes
Malignant vs. Tubular Adenoma 0.2993 No
Malignant vs. Adenosis 0.4519 No
Malignant vs. Fibroadenoma < 0.0001 Yes
Malignant vs. Phyllodes Tumor 0.1533 No
BreakHis – 400x Benign vs. Malignant 0.1452 No
Benign vs. Ductal CA 0.0030 Yes
Benign vs. Lobular CA 0.0047 Yes
Benign vs. Mucinous CA 0.4533 No
Benign vs. Papillary CA 0.4031 No
Malignant vs. Tubular Adenoma 0.0187 No
Malignant vs. Adenosis 0.9419 No
Malignant vs. Fibroadenoma 0.0001 Yes
Malignant vs. Phyllodes Tumor 0.5604 No
BACH – 200x Normal vs. All Malignant < 0.0001 Yes
Normal vs. in situ CA < 0.0001 Yes
Normal vs. Invasive CA < 0.0001 Yes
Normal vs. Benign 0.0852 No
Benign vs. in situ CA < 0.0001 Yes
Benign vs. Invasive CA < 0.0001 Yes
All malignant vs. Normal + Benign < 0.0001 Yes