Confocal microwave imaging for breast cancer detection: localization of tumors in three dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physical basis for breast tumor detection with microwave imaging is the contrast in dielectric properties of normal and malignant breast tissues. Confocal microwave imaging involves illuminating the breast with an ultra-wideband pulse from a number of antenna locations, then synthetically focusing reflections from the breast. The detection of malignant tumors is achieved by the coherent addition of returns from these strongly scattering objects. In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility of detecting and localizing small (<1 cm) tumors in three dimensions with numerical models of two system configurations involving synthetic cylindrical and planar antenna arrays. Image formation algorithms are developed to enhance tumor responses and reduce early- and late-time clutter. The early-time clutter consists of the incident pulse and reflections from the skin, while the late-time clutter is primarily due to the heterogeneity of breast tissue. Successful detection of 6-mm-diameter spherical tumors is achieved with both planar and cylindrical systems, and similar performance measures are obtained. The influences of the synthetic array size and position relative to the tumor are also explored.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".