MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992014265 · doi:10.1109/imac4s.2013.6526445

Improvement of masses detection in digital mammograms employing non-linear filtering

2013· article· en· W1992014265 on OpenAlexaff
Vikrant Bhateja, Shabana Urooj, Ankita Pandey, A. Lay-Ekuakille, Mukul Misra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDigital mammographyVisualizationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceContrast (vision)Filter (signal processing)Digital filterLinear filterContrast enhancementMammographyPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer aided detection of mammographic masses can be improved to a greater extent employing non-linear filters for image enhancement. The present work proposes a truncated Volterra filter combination to provide contrast enhancement as well as texture based processing of masses in digital mammograms. Noteworthy improvement in visualization of masses has been observed in the simulation results carried out on cases from DDSM database. The improved performance of the proposed filtering approach is well supported with calculated values of objective evaluation parameters.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207