Sensitivity Analysis of a Portable Microwave Breast Cancer Detection System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prototype portable breast microwave sensing (BMS) system for early breast cancer detection has been developed in our lab.In this paper, we provide preliminary results for the response of the antenna sensor array to a point scatterer, using both simulation and experiment.The portable system uses a horn antenna to transmit frequencies from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz and a sensor array using thirteen patch antennas.The optimal separation of each antenna in the receiver array was calculated to be 4 mm based on an envelope correlation coefficient of 0.37.The BMS system, including the horn antenna, was designed in CST Microwave Studio to mimic the experimental setup.This study compares the E-field characteristics and DC voltages for each sensor, using simulation and experimental results, for both a free air system and with an Aluminum rod placed at different positions in the scanning plane.A 13×10 array of geometric correction constants was calculated from the simulated E-field.The range of difference between the simulated and experimental results was -4% to 3% for open space conditions and ±20% when an Aluminum rod was placed at different positions in the scanning plane.The preliminary results are promising and provide some insight as to where improvements must be made to enhance the detection ability of the portable system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".