Classification of breast tissue density by optical transillumination spectroscopy: Optical and physiological effects governing predictive value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preventive oncology is in need of a risk assessment technique that can identify individuals at high risk for breast cancer and has the ability to monitor the efficacy of a risk reducing intervention. Optical transillumination spectroscopy (OTS) gives information about breast tissue composition and tissue density. OTS is noninvasive and in contrast to mammography, uses nonionizing radiation. It is safe and can be used frequently on younger women, potentially permitting early risk detection and thus increasing the time available for risk reduction interventions to assert their influence. Before OTS can be used as a risk assessment and/or monitoring technique, its predictive ability needs to be demonstrated and maximized through the construction of various mathematical models relating OTS and breast tissue density, and hence, risk. To establish a correlation between OTS and mammographic density principal components analysis (PCA), using risk classification, is calculated. The PCA scores are presented in three-dimensional cluster plots and a plane of differentiation that separates the high and low tissue densities is used to calculate the predictive value. Stratification of PCA for measurement position on the breast in cranial-caudal projection is introduced. Analysis of PCA scores as a function of the volunteer's age and body mass index (BMI) is examined. A small but significant correlation between the component scores and age or BMI is noted but the correlation is dependent on the tissue density category examined. Correction of the component scores for age and BMI is not recommended, since a priori knowledge of a woman's breast tissue density is required. Stratification for the center and distal measurement positions provide a predictive value for OTS above 96%.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".