MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advanced Fuzzy Methods for Mammography Image Analysis

2012· book-chapter· en· W2488858564 on OpenAlexaff
Farhang Sahba, A. Venetsanopoulos, Gerald Schaefer

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in bioinformatics and biomedical engineering book series · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyBreast cancerArtificial intelligenceComputer-aided diagnosisFuzzy logicComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Feature extractionModality (human–computer interaction)Focus (optics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningCancerComputer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer worldwide and one of the most common causes of cancer deaths. Worryingly, breast cancer incidence rates have increased over recent years. Computer Aided Diagnosis (CADx) systems are designed to help radiologists identify cancerous signs earlier, and hence to reduce the death rate. These systems involve at least two main stages: feature extraction to derive useful information from the images, and diagnosis which is typically handled as a machine learning/pattern classification problem. For breast cancer diagnosis, x-ray mammography is the main modality of diagnosis. The inherent fuzziness in the nature of mammography images makes fuzzy set theory a useful technique for handling these images. It is used as a well-suited tool to extract meaningful information from inexact data and generate appropriate solutions. In this chapter, the authors present a fast overview of some fuzzy-based methods for computer-aided detection and computer aided diagnosis of breast cancer using mammography images. Their focus is on fuzzy logic-based methods developed for mammogram enhancement, microcalcification (MC) detection, and detection and classification of masses.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in bioinformatics and biomedical engineering book seriesSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207