Pilot study: electrical impedance based tissue classification using support vector machine classifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue classification using computer aided diagnosis can help automated decision making to aid clinical diagnosis. Classification of breast tissue based on spectral features of impedance loci has frequently been done to classify malignant tissue with further requirement of more complex classification methodologies needed to improve the characterisation. In current study, tissue classification is done using in vivo electrical impedance data of 18 human subjects, from four quadrants of breast, palm, nail, arm, bicep and classified using algorithms involving machine learning methodologies, specifically support vector machines (SVMs) that are supervised learning models. They consist of learning algorithms based on the principal of structural risk minimisation. Two methodologies of SVM have been used in this study: with data binning and data pruning and without data binning and data pruning. Data binning and data pruning have improved the sensitivity of the SVM from 76.76 to 89.23%, but the specificity has decreased from 76.23 to 74.15%. This is a pilot study towards testing the reliability of the developed electrical impedance measuring system and developing a data mining‐based decision making system into an electrical impedance spectroscopy system, to help users (physicians) with tissue classification leading to reliable objective decision making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".