MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540127540 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2004.1403893

An Indexed Atlas for Content-based Retrieval and Analysis of Mammograms

2005· article· en· W2540127540 on OpenAlexaff
Harold Lau, Kin Y. Mok, Derek So, Chi K. Tse, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)Computer scienceCADComputer-aided diagnosisBreast cancerMammographyImage retrievalInformation retrievalContent-based image retrievalMedicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyMedical physicsCancerInternal medicineEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the development of an indexed atlas of digital mammograms to facilitate content-based retrieval and comparative analysis of mammograms for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of breast cancer. Specifically, the requirements and the design of the components of the indexed archival and retrieval system are examined. In order to facilitate search by categories, the mammograms in the atlas are indexed by case number, year of acquisition, category (normal, benign disease, and malignant disease that could be screen-detected or interval cancer), and the presence of signs of disease such as masses, calcifications, bilateral asymmetry, and architectural distortion. In the initial phase of the project, mammograms with masses have been indexed with objective diagnostic features related to their shape, edge definition, and texture. Interfaces to the atlas provide tools for selection and retrieval of cases by text-based or content-based indices. The system should assist radiologists and clinical specialists in CAD of breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.016

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207