MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101771332 · doi:10.1109/titb.2008.2009441

Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer With Mammography: Recent Advances

2009· review· en· W2101771332 on OpenAlexaff
Jinshan Tang, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan, Jun Xu, Yongyi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMammographyMedicineCancerCADComputer-aided diagnosisCancer detectionComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the second-most common and leading cause of cancer death among women. It has become a major health issue in the world over the past 50 years, and its incidence has increased in recent years. Early detection is an effective way to diagnose and manage breast cancer. Computer-aided detection or diagnosis (CAD) systems can play a key role in the early detection of breast cancer and can reduce the death rate among women with breast cancer. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of recent advances in the development of CAD systems and related techniques. We begin with a brief introduction to some basic concepts related to breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We then focus on key CAD techniques developed recently for breast cancer, including detection of calcifications, detection of masses, detection of architectural distortion, detection of bilateral asymmetry, image enhancement, and image retrieval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations622
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Technology in BiomedicineSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207