MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984374046 · doi:10.1117/12.530966

Detection of architectural distortion in mammograms using phase portraits

2004· article· en· W1984374046 on OpenAlexafffund
Fábio J. Ayres, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDistortion (music)Computer visionFalse positive paradoxOrientation (vector space)Pattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural distortion is a subtle abnormality in mammograms, and a source of overlooking errors by radiologists. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) techniques can improve the performance of radiologists in detecting masses and calcifications; however, most CAD systems have not been designed to detect architectural distortion. We present a new method to detect and localize architectural distortion by analyzing the oriented texture in mammograms. A bank of Gabor filters is used to obtain the orientation field of the given mammogram. The orientation field is filtered and downsampled, to reduce noise and also to reduce the computational effort required by the subsequent methods. The downsampled orientation field is analyzed to produce three phase portrait maps: node, saddle, and spiral. The node map is linearly filtered, thresholded, and morphologically filtered to detect architectural distortion. The method was tested with 18 mammograms containing architectural distortion. In a preliminary experiment, a sensitivity of 88% was obtained at 15 false positives per image. Several possibilities for the improvement of the technique are being explored. A qualitative analysis of the performance of the method with stellate lesions indicates potential for enhancement of the technique.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207