Gradient and texture analysis for the classification of mammographic masses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-aided classification of benign and malignant masses on mammograms is attempted in this study by computing gradient-based and texture-based features. Features computed based on gray-level co-occurrence matrices (GCMs) are used to evaluate the effectiveness of textural information possessed by mass regions in comparison with the textural information present in mass margins. A method involving polygonal modeling of boundaries is proposed for the extraction of a ribbon of pixels across mass margins. Two gradient-based features are developed to estimate the sharpness of mass boundaries in the ribbons of pixels extracted from their margins. A total of 54 images (28 benign and 26 malignant) containing 39 images from the Mammographic Image Analysis Society (MIAS) database and 15 images from a local database are analyzed. The best benign versus malignant classification of 82.1%, with an area (Az) of 0.85 under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, was obtained with the images from the MIAS database by using GCM-based texture features computed from mass margins. The classification method used is based on posterior probabilities computed from Mahalanobis distances. The corresponding accuracy using jack-knife classification was observed to be 74.4%, with Az = 0.67. Gradient-based features achieved Az = 0.6 on the MIAS database and Az = 0.76 on the combined database. The corresponding values obtained using jack-knife classification were observed to be 0.52 and 0.73 for the MIAS and combined databases, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it