MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168164949 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5334517

Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer cases with neural networks

2009· article· en· W2168164949 on OpenAlexaff
Sharmili Banik, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan, J. E. Leo Desautels

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicLinear discriminant analysisMammographyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Fractal dimensionArtificial neural networkBreast cancerComputer scienceFalse positive paradoxMathematicsFractalStatisticsMedicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural distortion is a commonly missed sign of breast cancer. This paper investigates the detection of architectural distortion, in mammograms of interval-cancer cases taken prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer, using Gabor filters, phase portrait analysis, fractal dimension, and texture analysis. The methods were used to detect initial candidates for sites of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval-cancer and also normal cases. A total of 4212 regions of interest (ROIs) were automatically obtained from 106 prior mammograms of 56 interval-cancer cases, including 262 ROIs related to architectural distortion, and from 52 prior mammograms of 13 normal cases. For each ROI, the fractal dimension and Haralick's texture features were computed. Feature selection was performed using stepwise logistic regression and in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC). The best results achieved, in terms of AUC, are 0.75 with the Bayesian classifier, 0.71 with Fisher linear discriminant analysis, and 0.76 with an artificial neural network (ANN) based on radial basis functions (RBF). Analysis of the performance of the methods with free-response receiver operating characteristics indicated a sensitivity of 0.80 at 10.5 false positives per image.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207