Computer-aided detection (CAD) of breast masses in mammography: combined detection and ensemble classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel computer-aided detection (CAD) framework of breast masses in mammography. To increase detection sensitivity for various types of mammographic masses, we propose the combined use of different detection algorithms. In particular, we develop a region-of-interest combination mechanism that integrates detection information gained from unsupervised and supervised detection algorithms. Also, to significantly reduce the number of false-positive (FP) detections, the new ensemble classification algorithm is developed. Extensive experiments have been conducted on a benchmark mammogram database. Results show that our combined detection approach can considerably improve the detection sensitivity with a small loss of FP rate, compared to representative detection algorithms previously developed for mammographic CAD systems. The proposed ensemble classification solution also has a dramatic impact on the reduction of FP detections; as much as 70% (from 15 to 4.5 per image) at only cost of 4.6% sensitivity loss (from 90.0% to 85.4%). Moreover, our proposed CAD method performs as well or better (70.7% and 80.0% per 1.5 and 3.5 FPs per image respectively) than the results of mammography CAD algorithms previously reported in the literature.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".