Detection of microcalcifications in mammograms using error of prediction and statistical measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-stage method for detecting microcalcifications in mammograms is presented. In the first stage, the determination of the candidates for microcalcifications is performed. For this purpose, a 2-D linear prediction error filter is applied, and for those pixels where the prediction error is larger than a threshold, a statistical measure is calculated to determine whether they are candidates for microcalcifications or not. In the second stage, a feature vector is derived for each candidate, and after a classification step using a support vector machine, the final detection is performed. The algorithm is tested with 40 mammographic images, from Screen Test: The Alberta Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer with 50-µm resolution, and the results are evaluated using a free-response receiver operating characteristics curve. Two different analyses are performed: an individual microcalcification detection analysis and a cluster analysis. In the analysis of individual microcalcifications, detection sensitivity values of 0.75 and 0.81 are obtained at 2.6 and 6.2 false positives per image, on the average, respectively. The best performance is characterized by a sensitivity of 0.89, a specificity of 0.99, and a positive predictive value of 0.79. In cluster analysis, a sensitivity value of 0.97 is obtained at 1.77 false positives per image, and a value of 0.90 is achieved at 0.94 false positive 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".