Using Machine Learning to Automate Mammogram Images Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death after lung cancer in women. Early detection of breast cancer in X-ray mammography is believed to have effectively reduced the mortality rate since 1989. However, a relatively high false positive rate and a low specificity in mammography technology still exist. In this work, a computer-aided automatic mammogram analysis system is proposed to process the mammogram images and automatically discriminate them as either normal or cancerous, consisting of three consecutive image processing, feature selection, and image classification stages. In designing the system, the discrete wavelet transforms (Daubechies 2, Daubechies 4, and Biorthogonal 6.8) and the Fourier cosine transform were first used to parse the mammogram images and extract statistical features. Then, an entropy-based feature selection method was implemented to reduce the number of features. Finally, different pattern recognition methods (including the Back-propagation Network, the Linear Discriminant Analysis, and the Naive Bayes Classifier) and a voting classification scheme were employed. The performance of each classification strategy was evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy and for general performance using the Receiver Operating Curve. Our method is validated on the dataset from the Eastern Health in Newfoundland and Labrador of Canada. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed automatic mammogram analysis system could effectively improve the classification performances.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".