Classification of breast masses via transformation of features using kernel principal component analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies on classification of breast masses in mammograms have shown that shape features are highly successful in discriminating between malignant breast tumors and benign masses, as compared to edge-sharpness and texture features. However, the extraction of shape features requires accurate contours which are not easy to obtain automatically. In this paper, we propose to apply kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) to the problem of classification of breast masses, aiming to improve the discriminating power of each single feature in an expanded feature space derived from a centered kernel matrix. We also aim to improve the discriminating capability of different feature combinations in other transformed, more informative, lower-dimensional feature spaces, especially with the edge-sharpness and texture features. Fisher's linear discriminant analysis (FLDA) is employed to evaluate the classification capability of the transformed features via KPCA. The methods were tested with a set of 57 regions in mammograms, of which 20 are related to malignant tumors and 37 to benign masses, represented using one shape feature, three edge-sharpness features, and 14 texture features. The classification performance of the edge-sharpness and texture features, via KPCA transformation, was significantly improved from 0.75 to 0.85 in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".