MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116265081 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030695

Unsupervised time reversal based microwave imaging for breast cancer detection

2011· article· en· W2116265081 on OpenAlexaff
Mohmmad H. S. Sajjadieh, Amir Asif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterMicrowave imagingFinite-difference time-domain methodBackscatter (email)Breast cancerComputer scienceMicrowaveMammographyMagnetic resonance imagingFilter (signal processing)RadarPhysicsComputer visionOpticsCancerTelecommunicationsWirelessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave breast imaging is performed by illuminating the breast tissues with a short pulse of microwaves and processing the reflections (backscatter) to create a pseudospectrum that detects the presence of the breast tumours specifying their locations. An important step in such breast cancer detection techniques is the backscatter pre-conditioning step for effective suppression of the clutter signals arising from scattering mechanisms other than the tumor including the antenna reverberations and reflections from the skin-breast interface and chest wall. The paper proposes a new clutter suppression algorithm that successfully isolates the tumour response from the overall (tumour and clutter) response. The proposed DAF/EDF approach is based on a combination of the data adaptive filter (DAF) and the envelope detection filter (EDF), and does not require any prior training. The DAF/EDF algorithm is then coupled with the time reversal (TR) array imaging approaches [1, 2, 3] and tested by running finite difference, time difference (FDTD) electromagnetic simulations based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of the human breast. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the DAF/EDF algorithm for microwave breast cancer detection.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207