MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998885996 · doi:10.1117/12.598800

Computer-aided diagnosis for prostate cancer using support vector machine

2005· article· en· W1998885996 on OpenAlexaff
Samar Mohamed, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceFeature selectionClassifier (UML)Feature (linguistics)Feature extractionRegion of interestFeature vectorCo-occurrence matrixGrey levelComputer-aided diagnosisImage textureImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work in this paper aims for analyzing texture features of the prostate using Trans-Rectal Ultra-Sound images (TRUS) images for tissue characterization. This research is expected to assist beginner radiologists with the decision making. Moreover it will also assist in determining the biopsy locations. Texture feature analysis is composed of four stages. The first stage is automatically identifying Regions Of Interest (ROI), a step that was usually done either by an expert radiologist or by dividing the whole image into smaller squares that represent regions of interest. The second stage is extracting the statistical features from the identified ROIs. Two different statistical feature sets were used in this study; the first is Grey Level Dependence Matrix features. The second feature set is Grey level difference vector features. These constructed features are then ranked using Mutual Information (MI) feature selection algorithm that maximizes MI between feature and class. The obtained feature sets, the combined feature set as well as the reduced feature subset were examined using Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier, a well established classifier that is suitable for noisy data such as those obtained from the ultrasound images. The obtained sensitivity is 83.3%, specificity ranges from 90% to 100% and accuracy ranges from 87.5% to 93.75%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207