TIME-DOMAIN MICROWAVE RADAR APPLIED TO BREAST IMAGING: MEASUREMENT RELIABILITY IN A CLINICAL SETTING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents an evaluation of the measurement challenges in clinical testing of our microwave breast cancer screening system. The time-domain radar system contains a multistatic 16antenna hemi-spherical array operating in the 2-4 GHz frequency range. We investigate, for the first time with such a system in clinical trials, the repeatability of measurements and its effect on image reconstruction. We record vertical and horizontal measurement uncertainties under different scenarios and verify using previously introduced compensation methods that they can be successfully reduced to an acceptable level from the standpoint of image reconstruction. We also examine how placement of an immersion medium can affect collected breast scan data. Finally, we probe the repeatability and consistency of measurements with patients. With the goal of confirming the feasibility of frequent breast health monitoring, with our system, we obtain a total of 342 breast scans collected over 57 patient visits to determine how much scan data varies when there are no changes in between scans, and how much it varies when the patient is repositioned in the system. We confirm that, by taking care in patient positioning in the system and with respect to the immersion medium, the measurement repeatability is high.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it