MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335119202 · doi:10.1177/153303460500400205

Performance Evaluation of Image Processing Algorithms in CADe

2005· article· en· W2335119202 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Wirth

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage processingContext (archaeology)AlgorithmDigital image processingProcess (computing)Machine learningKey (lock)Artificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Data miningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the key limitations of existing image processing algorithms for computer-aided detection (CADe) is that they are often designed and evaluated in an ad hoc manner. This paper characterizes some of the issues and shortcomings in existing performance evaluation paradigms for image processing algorithms in breast cancer screening, particularly in the context of computer aided detection. We present the framework for establishing a performance evaluation process using standardized criteria. We conclude with some specific recommendations to improve the infrastructure for evaluation the performance of image processing algorithms.

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)0.002
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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology in Cancer Research & TreatmentSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207