Breast Tissue Mimicking Phantoms for Combined Microwave and Ultrasound Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports breast tissue mimicking phantoms for combined microwave and ultrasound imaging for breast cancer detection. Coconut oil and canola oil with agar were used to fabricate skin and fat, respectively. Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) was the primary material used to mimic tumor and fibroglandular (FGT) tissues. The microwave properties were measured at frequency range from 200 MHz to 6 GHz. At 5 GHz the skin phantom had a relative permittivity of 30.54 ± 3.51 and an effective conductivity of 2.74 ± 0.25 S/m. The relative permittivity and conductivity of fat phantom were 7.49 ± 1.33 S/m and 0.42 ± 0.10 S/m, respectively. As for FGT and tumor phantoms, the relative permittivity was 52.03 ± 1.35 and 59.33 ± 1.09, and the conductivity was 5.27 ± 0.26 S/m and 5.30 ± 0.16 S/m. A 7.5 MHz hydrophone measured the ultrasound properties. The skin phantom had an attenuation of 4.20 ± 0.53 dB/cm·MHz and a speed of sound of 1487.5 ± 4.65 m/s. For far tissue phantom, these two values were 1.44 ± 0.22 dB/cm·MHz and 1477.4 ± 2.17 m/s. The attenuation and speed of sound for FGT phantom were 0.64 ± 0.05 dB/cm·MHz and 1555.4 ± 10.41 m/s. Also, the tumor phantom had an attenuation of 0.59 ± 0.18 dB/cm·MHz and a velocity of 1535.4 ± 34.25 m/s. The results correlate with the reported breast tissue properties. Therefore, the presented phantom can meet the requirements to mimic both microwave and ultrasound properties for 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 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 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".