Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining criteria to determine precisely the boundaries of masses in mammograms is a difficult task. The problem is compounded by the fact that most malignant tumors possess fuzzy boundaries with a slow and extended transition from a dense core region to the surrounding less-dense tissues. We propose two segmentation methods that incorporate fuzzy concepts. The first method determines the boundary of a mass or tumor by region growing after a preprocessing step based on fuzzy sets to enhance the region of interest (ROI). Contours provided by the method have demonstrated a good match with the contours drawn by a radiologist, as indicated by good agreement between the two sets of contours for 47 mammograms. The second segmentation method is a fuzzy region-growing method that takes into account the uncertainty present around the boundaries of tumors. The difficult step of deciding on a crisp boundary is obviated in the proposed method. Mea-sures of inhomogeneity computed from the pixels present in a suitably defined fuzzy ribbon have indicated potential use in classifying the masses and tumors as benign or malignant, with a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.9.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".