Measurement of compressed breast thickness by optical stereoscopic photogrammetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of volumetric breast density (VBD) from mammograms requires accurate knowledge of the thickness of the compressed breast. In attempting to accurately determine VBD from images obtained on conventional mammography systems, the authors found that the thickness reported by a number of mammography systems in the field varied by as much as 15 mm when compressing the same breast or phantom. In order to evaluate the behavior of mammographic compression systems and to be able to predict the thickness at different locations in the breast on patients, they have developed a method for measuring the local thickness of the breast at all points of contact with the compression paddle using optical stereoscopic photogrammetry. On both flat (solid) and compressible phantoms, the measurements were accurate to better than 1 mm with a precision of 0.2 mm. In a pilot study, this method was used to measure thickness on 108 volunteers who were undergoing mammography examination. This measurement tool will allow us to characterize paddle surface deformations, deflections and calibration offsets for mammographic units.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".