Recent Advancements in Time-Domain Breast Health Screening: Observations on the Phantom Stability and Wearable Hardware
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work reports observations on the stability of tissue-mimicking breast phantoms over the course of three years in the context of microwave imaging and detection of breast cancer using the time-domain radar approach. The phantom properties are measured using a coaxial dielectric probe. Furthermore, an antenna array configuration, which has demonstrated to be favorable for our specific antenna design, has been experimentally tested with aged and newly fabricated phantoms. The results show that, over a three-year period, the higher-permittivity materials (those that mimic the glandular and tumorous tissue) exhibit more significant deterioration in their electric properties than those of low permittivity (e.g. fat-mimicking materials). This uneven deterioration impacts the dielectric contrast between the aged phantom tissues, the very essence of the hypothesis underpinning the field of microwave imaging. Hence, care must be exercised when aged tissue-mimicking phantoms are used in the controlled experiments for validation of devices intended for microwave breast tumor detection and imaging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".