MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162563710 · doi:10.1109/bsc.2006.1644636

Time Domain Analysis of UWB Breast Cancer Detection

2006· article· en· W2162563710 on OpenAlexaff
W. Liu, Hamed Mazhab Jafari, Steve Hranilovic, M. Jamal Deen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOscilloscopeUltra-widebandBreast cancerComputer scienceTime domainMammographyNoise (video)Electronic engineeringWidebandMicrowave imagingCancerTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceMedicineEngineeringDetectorMicrowaveComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been considerable effort to investigate ultra-wideband (UWB) technology for the purpose of breast cancer detection. Previous publications based on frequency sweep have shown that UWB imaging systems have the potential to detect small sized (less than 2 cm) tumors. This work provides measurement results of a UWB breast cancer detection system consisting of a pulse generator, wideband oscilloscope, and two compact ultra-wideband antennas. The antenna experimental results show that the return loss is below -10 dB from 3.4 GHz to 10 GHz. The backscattered signal from tumor stimulant is measured and used to perform detection experiments. An autoregressive (AR) model is used to extract the energy of signal from the noise background and to perform the detection. The comparable detection rate with mammography quantifies the feasibility of UWB breast cancer detection. The advantage of this work is that it experimentally shows the potential of a time domain processing UWB system to detect early breast cancer tumor and paves the way for future work

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207