Automatic Identification of the Pectoral Muscle in Mammograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pectoral muscle represents a predominant density region in most medio-lateral oblique (MLO) views of mammograms; its inclusion can affect the results of intensity-based image processing methods or bias procedures in the detection of breast cancer. Local analysis of the pectoral muscle may be used to identify the presence of abnormal axillary lymph nodes, which may be the only manifestation of occult breast carcinoma. We propose a new method for the identification of the pectoral muscle in MLO mammograms based upon a multiresolution technique using Gabor wavelets. This new method overcomes the limitation of the straight-line representation considered in our initial investigation using the Hough transform. The method starts by convolving a group of Gabor filters, specially designed for enhancing the pectoral muscle edge, with the region of interest containing the pectoral muscle. After computing the magnitude and phase images using a vector-summation procedure, the magnitude value of each pixel is propagated in the direction of the phase. The resulting image is then used to detect the relevant edges. Finally, a post-processing stage is used to find the true pectoral muscle edge. The method was applied to 84 MLO mammograms from the Mini-MIAS (Mammographic Image Analysis Society, London, U.K.) database. Evaluation of the pectoral muscle edge detected in the mammograms was performed based upon the percentage of false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) pixels determined by comparison between the numbers of pixels enclosed in the regions delimited by the edges identified by a radiologist and by the proposed method. The average FP and FN rates were, respectively, 0.58% and 5.77%. Furthermore, the results of the Gabor-filter-based method indicated low Hausdorff distances with respect to the hand-drawn pectoral muscle edges, with the mean and standard deviation being 3.84 +/- 1.73 mm over 84 images.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".