Application of Eshelby’s Solution to Elastography for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eshelby's solution is the analytical method that can derive the elastic field within and around an ellipsoidal inclusion embedded in a matrix. Since breast tumor can be regarded as an elastic inclusion with different elastic properties from those of surrounding matrix when the deformation is small, we applied Eshelby's solution to predict the stress and strain fields in the breast containing a suspicious lesion. The results were used to investigate the effectiveness of strain ratio (SR) from elastography in representing modulus ratio (MR) that may be the meaningful indicator of the malignancy of the lesion. This study showed that SR significantly underestimates MR and is varied with the shape and the modulus of the lesion. Based on the results from Eshelby's solution and finite element analysis (FEA), we proposed a surface regression model as a polynomial function that can predict the MR of the lesion to the matrix. The model has been applied to gelatin-based phantoms and clinical ultrasound images of human breasts containing different types of lesions. The results suggest the potential of the proposed method to improve the diagnostic performance of breast cancer using elastography.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".