MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive Edge Detection Technique Towards Features Extraction from Mammogram Images

2016· article· en· W2339617301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samir Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Indra Kanta Maitra, Sangita Sangita Bhattacharjee, Debnath Debnath Bhattacharyya, Tai-Hoon Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cancer research updates · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingEdge detectionSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionCADComputer-aided diagnosisBreast cancerImage segmentationCancerCancer detectionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer is one of the most dreaded diseases of modern world. Breast cancer is the second most type of cancer & the fifth most common cause of cancer related death so it’s a significant public health problem in the world especially for elderly females. Computer technology specifically computer aided diagnosis (CAD), relatively young interdisciplinary technology, has had a tremendous impact on medical diagnosis of cancer detection due to its accuracy and cost effectiveness. The accuracy of CAD to detect abnormalities on medical image analysis requires a robust segmentation algorithm. To achieve accurate segmentation, an efficient edge-detection algorithm is essential. The mammogram is a comparatively efficient and low cost diagnostic imaging technique for breast cancer detection. In this paper a robust mammogram enhancement and edge detection algorithm is proposed, using tree-based adaptive thresholding technique. The proposed technique has been compared with different classical edge-detection techniques yielding acceptable out come. The proposed edge-detection algorithm showing 0.07 p-values and 2.411 t-stat in one sample two tail t-test ( = 0.025). The edge is single pixeled and connected which is very significant for medical edge-detection.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cancer research updatesSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207