Deep Learning for Lung Cancer Nodules Detection and Classification in CT Scans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting malignant lung nodules from computed tomography (CT) scans is a hard and time-consuming task for radiologists. To alleviate this burden, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been proposed. In recent years, deep learning approaches have shown impressive results outperforming classical methods in various fields. Nowadays, researchers are trying different deep learning techniques to increase the performance of CAD systems in lung cancer screening with computed tomography. In this work, we review recent state-of-the-art deep learning algorithms and architectures proposed as CAD systems for lung cancer detection. They are divided into two categories—(1) Nodule detection systems, which from the original CT scan detect candidate nodules; and (2) False positive reduction systems, which from a set of given candidate nodules classify them into benign or malignant tumors. The main characteristics of the different techniques are presented, and their performance is analyzed. The CT lung datasets available for research are also introduced. Comparison between the different techniques is presented and discussed.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it