A method to estimate the fractional fat volume within a ROI of a breast biopsy for WAXS applications: Animal tissue evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a method to estimate the mean fractional volume of fat (ν¯fat) within a region of interest (ROI) of a tissue sample for wide-angle x-ray scatter (WAXS) applications. A scatter signal from the ROI was obtained and use of ν¯fat in a WAXS fat subtraction model provided a way to estimate the differential linear scattering coefficient μs of the remaining fatless tissue. METHODS: The efficacy of the method was tested using animal tissue from a local butcher shop. Formalin fixed samples, 5 mm in diameter 4 mm thick, were prepared. The two main tissue types were fat and meat (fibrous). Pure as well as composite samples consisting of a mixture of the two tissue types were analyzed. For the latter samples, νfat for the tissue columns of interest were extracted from corresponding pixels in CCD digital x-ray images using a calibration curve. The means ν¯fat were then calculated for use in a WAXS fat subtraction model. For the WAXS measurements, the samples were interrogated with a 2.7 mm diameter 50 kV beam and the 6° scattered photons were detected with a CdTe detector subtending a solid angle of 7.75 × 10(-5) sr. Using the scatter spectrum, an estimate of the incident spectrum, and a scatter model, μs was determined for the tissue in the ROI. For the composite samples, a WAXS fat subtraction model was used to estimate the μs of the fibrous tissue in the ROI. This signal was compared to μs of fibrous tissue obtained using a pure fibrous sample. RESULTS: For chicken and beef composites, ν¯fat=0.33±0.05 and 0.32 ± 0.05, respectively. The subtractions of these fat components from the WAXS composite signals provided estimates of μs for chicken and beef fibrous tissue. The differences between the estimates and μs of fibrous obtained with a pure sample were calculated as a function of the momentum transfer x. A t-test showed that the mean of the differences did not vary from zero in a statistically significant way thereby validating the methods. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology to estimate ν¯fat in a ROI of a tissue sample via CCD x-ray imaging was quantitatively accurate. The WAXS fat subtraction model allowed μs of fibrous tissue to be obtained from a ROI which had some fat. The fat estimation method coupled with the WAXS models can be used to compare μs coefficients of fibroglandular and cancerous breast tissue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".