MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171545686 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2008.921164

Tumor Response Estimation in Radar-Based Microwave Breast Cancer Detection

2008· article· en· W2171545686 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterRadarComputer scienceBreast tumorParametric statisticsMicrowave imagingEmphasis (telecommunications)A priori and a posterioriEstimation theorySignal processingMicrowaveParametric modelArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Breast cancerAlgorithmMathematicsCancerTelecommunicationsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radar-based microwave imaging techniques have been proposed for early stage breast cancer detection. A considerable challenge for the successful implementation of these techniques is the reduction of clutter, or components of the signal originating from objects other than the tumor. In particular, the reduction of clutter from the late-time scattered fields is required in order to detect small (subcentimeter diameter) tumors. In this paper, a method to estimate the tumor response contained in the late-time scattered fields is presented. The method uses a parametric function to model the tumor response. A maximum a posteriori estimation approach is used to evaluate the optimal values for the estimates of the parameters. A pattern classification technique is then used to validate the estimation. The ability of the algorithm to estimate a tumor response is demonstrated by using both experimental and simulated data obtained with a tissue sensing adaptive radar system.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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