MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582207877 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2017.2649481

Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views

2017· article· en· W2582207877 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Asgari Taghanaki, Yonghuai Liu, Brandon Miles, Ghassan Hamarneh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaccard indexSegmentationMammographyPectoral muscleArtificial intelligenceHausdorff distanceComputer-aided diagnosisSørensen–Dice coefficientPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceBreast cancerBreast tissueImage segmentationComputer visionMedicineCancerAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer-aided diagnosis systems (CADx) play a major role in the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Extracting the breast region precisely from a mammogram is an essential component of CADx for mammography. The appearance of the pectoral muscle on medio-lateral oblique (MLO) views increases the false positive rate in CADx. Therefore, the pectoral muscle should be identified and removed from the breast region in an MLO image before further analysis. None of the previous pectoral muscle segmentation methods address all breast types based on the breast imaging-reporting and data system tissue density classes. In this paper, we deal with this deficiency by introducing a new simple yet effective method that combines geometric rules with a region growing algorithm to support the segmentation of all types of pectoral muscles (normal, convex, concave, and combinatorial). Experimental segmentation accuracy results were reported for four tissue density classes on 872 MLO images from three publicly available datasets. An average Jaccard index and Dice similarity coefficient of 0.972 ± 0.003 and 0.985 ± 0.001 were obtained, respectively. The mean Hausdorff distance between the contours detected by our method and the ground truth is below 5 mm for all datasets. An average acceptable segmentation rate of ∼95% was achieved outperforming several state-of-the-art competing methods. Excellent results were obtained even for the most challenging class of extremely dense breasts.Computer-aided diagnosis systems (CADx) play a major role in the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Extracting the breast region precisely from a mammogram is an essential component of CADx for mammography. The appearance of the pectoral muscle on medio-lateral oblique (MLO) views increases the false positive rate in CADx. Therefore, the pectoral muscle should be identified and removed from the breast region in an MLO image before further analysis. None of the previous pectoral muscle segmentation methods address all breast types based on the breast imaging-reporting and data system tissue density classes. In this paper, we deal with this deficiency by introducing a new simple yet effective method that combines geometric rules with a region growing algorithm to support the segmentation of all types of pectoral muscles (normal, convex, concave, and combinatorial). Experimental segmentation accuracy results were reported for four tissue density classes on 872 MLO images from three publicly available datasets. An average Jaccard index and Dice similarity coefficient of 0.972 ± 0.003 and 0.985 ± 0.001 were obtained, respectively. The mean Hausdorff distance between the contours detected by our method and the ground truth is below 5 mm for all datasets. An average acceptable segmentation rate of ∼95% was achieved outperforming several state-of-the-art competing methods. Excellent results were obtained even for the most challenging class of extremely dense breasts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations51
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207