MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1711370505

Classification of breast masses via transformation of features using kernel principal component analysis

2007· article· en· W1711370505 on OpenAlexaff
Tinging Mu, Asoke K. Nandi, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Biomedical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Kernel principal component analysisArtificial intelligenceFeature extractionPrincipal component analysisKernel (algebra)Linear discriminant analysisComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Transformation (genetics)Feature vectorKernel Fisher discriminant analysisReceiver operating characteristicMathematicsKernel methodSupport vector machineMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207