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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
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