Confocal microwave imaging for breast tumor detection: comparison of immersion liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microwave imaging for breast cancer has been proposed as an alternative or complementary breast imaging technique. The physical basis for tumor detection with microwave imaging is the contrast in dielectric properties of normal and malignant breast tissue. One approach to active microwave imaging of the breast is confocal microwave imaging (CMI). CMI locates tumors using energy reflected from the breast after illumination by an ultra-wideband signal. In one configuration for CMI, a woman lies on her stomach with the breast naturally extending through a hole in the examination table. The illuminating antenna is positioned at a distance from the skin, and physically scanned to a number of locations. Both the antenna and breast are immersed in a low loss liquid for better matching. Previously, our investigations focussed on detection and localization of tumors in a 2D cross section of a simple breast model. We now present 3D localization of tumors achieved with 2 different immersions liquids, one similar to breast tissue and the other similar to skin. For both systems, a 6 mm diameter tumor is reliably detected and localized in 3D. The results do not indicate a clear advantage to selecting either liquid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".