Automated detection of lung cancer using statistical and morphological image processing techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer represents the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Jordanian population. Evidence that early detection of lung cancer may allow for more timely therapeutic intervention has provided the momentum for lung cancer screening programs around the world. In this study, a computer aided detection (CAD) system is proposed in an attempt to detect the lung cancer areas using computed tomography (CT) images. It is implemented as a “second reader” to help radiologists focus their attention on regions that might be missed during visual interpretation. The proposed CAD system has three main stages; Segmentation by thresholding the CT images, labeling the founded regions and then extracting some diagnostic features of each region for further analysis and interpretation. The study is trained, tested, and validated using images obtained from forty five patients. The obtained results perfectly match the radiologist's diagnosis in detecting the defected areas and quantitatively measuring its size, location, borders as well as displaying its other diagnostic characteristics. Moreover, the proposed system can detect misclassified regions.
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.
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 it