MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051906533 · doi:10.1117/12.700960

Optical tomography as adjunct to x-ray mammography: methods and results

2007· article· en· W2051906533 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mario Khayat, Zahia Ichalalène, Niculae Mincu, Frédéric Leblond, Olga Guilman, Salim Djeziri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMammographyDiffuse optical imagingOptical tomographyMedical physicsPopulationBreast imagingComputer scienceOptical imagingBreast tissueMedicineArtificial intelligenceTomographyRadiologyBreast cancerOpticsPhysicsCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen significant efforts deployed to apply optical imaging techniques in clinical indications. Optical mammography as an adjunct to X-ray mammography is one such application. 3D optical mammography relies on the sensitivity of near-infrared light to endogenous breast chromophores in order to generate in vivo functional views of the breast. This work presents prospective tissue characterization results from a multi-site clinical study targeting optical tomography as an adjunct to conventional mammography. A 2<sup>nd</sup> -generation multi-wavelength time-domain acquisition system was used to scan a wide population of women presenting normal or suspicious X-ray mammograms. Application specific algorithms based on a diffusive model of light transport were used to quantify the breast's optical properties and derive 3D images of physiological indices. Using histopathological findings as a gold standard, results confirm that optically derived parameters provide statistically significant discrimination between malignant and benign tissue in wide population of subjects. The methodology developed for case reviews, lesion delineation and characterization allows for better translation of the optical data to the more traditional x-ray paradigm while maintaining efficacy. They also point to the need for guidelines that facilitate correlation of optical data if those results are to be confirmed in a clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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