Analysis of Structural Similarity in Mammograms for Detection of Bilateral Asymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesize that quantification of structural similarity or dissimilarity between paired mammographic regions can be effective in detecting asymmetric signs of breast cancer. Bilateral masking procedures are applied for this purpose by using automatically detected anatomical landmarks. Changes in structural information of the extracted regions are investigated using spherical semivariogram descriptors and correlation-based structural similarity indices in the spatial and complex wavelet domains. The spatial distribution of grayscale values as well as of the magnitude and phase responses of multidirectional Gabor filters are used to represent the structure of mammographic density and of the directional components of breast tissue patterns, respectively. A total of 188 mammograms from the DDSM and mini-MIAS databases, consisting of 47 asymmetric cases and 47 normal cases, were analyzed. For the combined dataset of mammograms, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.83, 0.77, and 0.87 were obtained, respectively, with linear discriminant analysis, the Bayesian classifier, and an artificial neural network with radial basis functions, using the features selected by stepwise logistic regression and leave-one-patient-out cross-validation. Two-view analysis provided accuracy up to 0.94, with sensitivity and specificity of 1 and 0.88, respectively.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".