Breast Cancer Assessment With Pulse-Echo Speed of Sound Ultrasound From Intrinsic Tissue Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to differentiate malignant and benign solid breast lesions with a novel ultrasound (US) technique, which measures speed of sound (SoS) using standard US transducers and intrinsic tissue reflections and scattering (speckles) as internal reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective comparison study was performed with prior written informed consent from 20 women. Ten women with histological proven breast cancer and 10 with fibroadenoma were measured. A conventional US system with a linear probe was used for SoS-US (SonixTouch; Ultrasonix, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada). Tissue speckle reflections served as a timing reference for the US signals transmitted through the breasts. Relative phase inconsistencies were detected using plane wave measurements from different angular directions, and SoS images with 0.5-mm resolution were generated using a spatial domain reconstruction algorithm. The SoS of tumors were compared with the breast density of a larger cohort of 106 healthy women. RESULTS: Breast lesions show focal increments ΔSoS (meters per second) with respect to the tissue background. Peak ΔSoS values were evaluated. Breast carcinoma showed significantly higher ΔSoS than fibroadenomas ([INCREMENT]SoS > 41.64 m/s: sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 80%; area under curve, 0.910) and healthy breast tissue of different densities (area under curve, 0.938; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 96.5%). The lesion localization in SoS-US images was consistent with B-mode imaging and repeated SoS-US measurements were reproducible. CONCLUSIONS: Using SoS-US, based on conventional US and tissue speckles as timing reference, breast carcinoma showed significantly higher SoS values than fibroadenoma and healthy breast tissue of different densities. The SoS presents a promising technique for differentiating solid breast lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".