MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089668245 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/007

Wavelet-based feature extraction applied to small-angle x-ray scattering patterns from breast tissue: a tool for differentiating between tissue types

2006· article· en· W2089668245 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Greg Falzon, Sarah Pearson, R. D. Murison, C.J. Hall, Karen K. W. Siu, A. Evans, Keith D. Rogers, Robert A. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of New EnglandUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsWaveletScatteringSmall-angle X-ray scatteringBreast tissueFeature (linguistics)Materials scienceSynchrotronPattern recognition (psychology)PixelFeature extractionWavelet transformArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringBiological systemOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineBiologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the application of wavelet decomposition to small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) patterns from human breast tissue produced by a synchrotron source. The pixel intensities of SAXS patterns of normal, benign and malignant tissue types were transformed into wavelet coefficients. Statistical analysis found significant differences between the wavelet coefficients describing the patterns produced by different tissue types. These differences were then correlated with position in the image and have been linked to the supra-molecular structural changes that occur in breast tissue in the presence of disease. Specifically, results indicate that there are significant differences between healthy and diseased tissues in the wavelet coefficients that describe the peaks produced by the axial d-spacing of collagen. These differences suggest that a useful classification tool could be based upon the spectral information within the axial peaks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207