MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964221799 · doi:10.1118/1.3476184

Sci-Fri AM: Imaging - 05: Principal Component X-Ray Simulation Analysis of Breast Biopsy Phantoms

2010· article· en· W1964221799 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Y. Tang, JB Georgeoff, R. J. LeClair

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsyDetectorPrincipal component analysisNuclear medicineOpticsMaterials sciencePhysicsMedicineMathematicsRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multivariate principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on x-ray simulations of breast biopsy phantoms. Semianalytic models were used to generate scatter (Ns) and photon transmission (N) signals from mixtures of fibrous (i), cancerous (j), and adipose tissue (k). A 5mm diameter 30 kV Mo beam is incident on a 5 mm thick biopsy. The incident exposure is 5.08 × 10−4 C/kg. An energy discriminating photon counting detector is assumed (e.g. CZT). For simulation of scatter measurements, the detector is placed at a scatter angle θ=10°, whereas for transmission θ=0°. The distance from the biopsy center to a 5 mm diameter aperture above the detector is 15 cm. The variables used in the PCA are Ns/N0 (16 keV), Ns/N0 (25 keV) and N/N0 (8 keV) where N0 is the incident spectrum. These variables are calculated 10 times. Each trial consists of biopsy shuffling of tissue blocks for a chosen fractional composition (i,j,k). A statistical component was incorporated in No. As a preliminary test to the classification model, a total of 66 different biopsies have been simulated and are used as unknowns. The PCA classes generated are based on a biopsy composed of 5 layers and 5 radii. The 66 unknown compositions were tested against the PCA classes to determine if the biopsy tissue composition could be identified. Of the 66 biopsies, 46 were correctly identified. An example of a misclassified unknown was for the composition (0,0.2,0.8) which was classified as (0.3,0,0.7). Further work is required to increase accuracy of identification.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207