MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Lesion Segmentation in Ultrasound Images with Limited Annotated Data

2020· preprint· en· W3001935802 on OpenAlexaff
Bahareh Behboodi, Mina Amiri, Rupert Brooks, Hassan Rivaz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseBreast ultrasoundModality (human–computer interaction)Deep learningImage segmentationArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Speckle patternComputer visionMammographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound (US) is one of the most commonly used imaging modalities in both diagnosis and surgical interventions due to its low-cost, safety, and non-invasive characteristic. US image segmentation is currently a unique challenge because of the presence of speckle noise. As manual segmentation requires considerable efforts and time, the development of automatic segmentation algorithms has attracted researchers' attention. Although recent methodologies based on convolutional neural networks have shown promising performances, their success relies on the availability of a large number of training data, which is prohibitively difficult for many applications. Therefore, in this study we propose the use of simulated US images and natural images as auxiliary datasets in order to pre-train our segmentation network, and then to fine-tune with limited in vivo data. We show that with as little as 19 in vivo images, fine-tuning the pre-trained network improves the dice score by 21% compared to training from scratch. We also demonstrate that if same number of natural and simulation US images is available, pre-training on simulation data is preferable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207