A METHOD FOR FRACTAL-DRIVEN REGULARIZATION OF AUTOENCODERS IN SEMI-SUPERVISED MEDICAL IMAGE CLASSIFICATION

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/kpisn.2025.4.343202

Keywords:

semi-supervised learning, fractal dimension, autoencoder, latent space regularization, medical images, image classification, box-counting

Abstract

Background: Medical image classification using deep learning is a critical task, yet its effectiveness is constrained by the scarcity of labeled data, which is expensive to acquire. Semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods address this by leveraging unlabeled data. Common autoencoder (AE)-based approaches use reconstruction as a training signal. However, standard reconstruction loss minimization does not guarantee that the resulting latent space will be optimally structured for the classification task, as the model may focus on diagnostically irrelevant features.

Objective: To develop and experimentally validate a novel latent space regularization method: fractal-driven regularization (FDR). The goal is to improve classification metrics for medical images under conditions of severe labeled data scarcity (5%) by integrating fractal dimension (FD) as an additional, a priori training signal.

Methods: The proposed model (FDR-AE) is based on an autoencoder architecture, augmented with two heads attached to the latent space: a classification head and a regression head. The regression head is trained to predict the input image's FD, which is pre-calculated using the "box-counting" method. The total loss function is a combination of three components: classification loss (on 5% labeled data) and both reconstruction and fractal regression losses (on 100% of data). The method's efficacy was validated on three datasets of different modalities (ISIC2024, COVID-19 Radiology, Brain Tumor MRI), comparing it against a baseline convolutional network (Base-CNN) and a standard semi-supervised autoencoder (SSL-AE).

Results: The experiments demonstrated a consistent advantage for the proposed method. On the ISIC2024 dataset, FDR-AE achieved an F1-Score of 0.508 for the "malignant" class, compared to 0.431 for SSL-AE and 0.304 for Base-CNN. On the COVID-19 dataset, the F1-Score for the "covid19" class was 0.722 for FDR-AE versus 0.695 for SSL-AE. In the 4-class Brain Tumor task, FDR-AE showed improved F1-Scores across all classes, with the most significant gains (+0.079 and +0.054) observed for classes 0 and 3, which also had the greatest mutual statistical difference in their FD values.

Conclusions: Fractal-driven regularization demonstrates that FD is a valuable a priori signal for learning higher-quality, structurally-grounded representations in SSL tasks. The method is particularly effective on simple architectures under severe data scarcity. Prospects for future research include using FDR as a pre-training method or implementing a dynamic coefficient for the regression component of the loss function.

References

C. S. Fortin, R. Kumaresan, W. J. Ohley, and S. Hoefer, “Fractal dimension in the analysis of medical images,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 65-71, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1109/51.139039

S. Kisan, S. Mishra, and S. B. Rout, “Fractal dimension in medical imaging: a review,” IRJET, vol. 5, pp. 1102-1106, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i5/IRJET-V4I5363.pdf. Accessed: Oct. 11, 2025.

S. Liu et al., “Relationship between necrotic patterns in glioblastoma and patient survival: fractal dimension and lacunarity analyses using magnetic resonance imaging,” Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 8302, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08862-6

M. Z. C. Azemin et al., “Robust methodology for fractal analysis of the retinal vasculature,” IEEE Trans Med Imaging, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 243–250, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2010.2076322

R. M. Rangayyan and T. M. Nguyen, “Fractal analysis of contours of breast masses in mammograms,” Journal of digital imaging, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 223–237, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-006-0860-9

K. Falconer, Fractal geometry: mathematical foundations and applications. Chichester: John Wiley, 1990, pp. 38–47. [Online]. Available: www.wiley.com/en-us/Fractal+Geometry%3A+Mathematical+Foundations+and+Applications%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781119942399#description-section. Accessed: Oct. 11, 2025.

S. Buczkowski, P. Hildgen, and L. Cartilier, “Measurements of fractal dimension by box-counting: a critical analysis of data scatter,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 252, no. 1-2, pp. 23-34, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(97)00581-5

J. Li, Q. Du, and C. Sun, “An improved box-counting method for image fractal dimension estimation,” Pattern recognition, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 2460-2469, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.001

C. Panigrahy, A. Seal, and N. K. Mahato, “Fractal dimension of synthesized and natural color images in lab space,” Pattern Analysis and Applications, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 819-836, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-019-00839-7

R. D. O. Plotze et al., “Leaf shape analysis using the multiscale Minkowski fractal dimension, a new morphometric method: a study with Passiflora (Passifloraceae),” Canadian Journal of Botany, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 287-301, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1139/b05-002

H. Ahammer, “Higuchi dimension of digital images,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 9, p. e24796, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024796

J. B. Florindo and O. Martinez Bruno, “Fractal descriptors in the Fourier domain applied to color texture analysis,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3650233

A. Makhzani, J. Shlens, N. Jaitly, I. Goodfellow, and B. Frey, “Adversarial autoencoders,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05644, 2015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.05644

Rasmus, H. Valpola, M. Honkala, M. Berglund, and T. Raiko, "Semi-Supervised Learning with Ladder Networks," in NIPS'15: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 2, 2015, pp. 3546–3554. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1507.02672

N. R. Kurtansky et al., “The SLICE-3D dataset: 400,000 skin lesion image crops extracted from 3D TBP for skin cancer detection,” Scientific Data, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 884, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03743-w

M. E. Chowdhury et al., “Can AI help in screening viral and COVID-19 pneumonia?,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 132665-132676, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3010287

T. Rahman et al., “Exploring the effect of image enhancement techniques on COVID-19 detection using chest X-ray images,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 132, p. 104319, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104319

M. Nickparvar, “Brain Tumor MRI Dataset,” Kaggle, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/masoudnickparvar/brain-tumor-mri-dataset. Accessed: Oct. 11, 2025.

D. P. Kingma, D. J. Rezende, S. Mohamed, and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 27, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5352-semi-supervised-learning-with-deep-generative-models. Accessed: Oct. 11, 2025.

Published

2025-12-29