MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106174756 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3036662

On Segmentation of Pectoral Muscle in Digital Mammograms by Means of Deep Learning

2020· article· en· W3106174756 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Soleimani, Oleg Michailovich

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMammographyConvolutional neural networkDigital mammographyPattern recognition (psychology)Pectoral muscleImage segmentationShortest path problemGraphArtificial neural networkComputer visionAnatomyBreast cancerMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) has long become an integral part of radiological management of breast disease, facilitating a number of important clinical applications, including quantitative assessment of breast density and early detection of malignancies based on X-ray mammography. Common to such applications is the need to automatically discriminate between breast tissue and adjacent anatomy, with the latter being predominantly represented by pectoralis major (or pectoral muscle). Especially in the case of mammograms acquired in the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view, the muscle is easily confusable with some elements of breast anatomy due to their morphological and photometric similarity. As a result, the problem of automatic detection and segmentation of pectoral muscle in MLO mammograms remains a challenging task, innovative approaches to which are still required and constantly searched for. To address this problem, the present paper introduces a two-step segmentation strategy based on a combined use of data-driven prediction (deep learning) and graph-based image processing. In particular, the proposed method employs a convolutional neural network (CNN) which is designed to predict the location of breast-pectoral boundary at different levels of spatial resolution. Subsequently, the predictions are used by the second stage of the algorithm, in which the desired boundary is recovered as a solution to the shortest path problem on a specially designed graph. The proposed algorithm has been tested on three different datasets (i.e., MIAS, CBIS-DDSm, and InBreast) using a range of quantitative metrics. The results of comparative analysis show considerable improvement over state-of-the-art, while offering the possibility of model-free and fully automatic processing. The average values of dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and accuracy (ACC) on the mentioned three datasets are 97.22 ± 1.96% and 99.64±.27%, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207