Detection of Lung Cancer Tumor in CT Scan Images Using Novel Combination of Super Pixel and Active Contour Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is a problem that has become increasingly widespread in recent years due to smoking, poor nutrition and other factors. If lung cancer cells are identified at an early stage, they will be crucial in saving lives. Machine learning-based approaches to detecting lung cancer tumors have reduced the need for manpower, reduced human error and reduced medical costs. CT scan images are one of the efficient image types to identify these tumors in the lung. However, the random location and shape of the tumors and poor quality of CT scans are biggest challenges in lung cancer tumor detection. In this paper, a multi-step method for detecting cancer tumors in CT scans is proposed. In the proposed method, the images are first clustered using the super pixel algorithm. The morphological operators are then used to cut the unconnected parts. Finally, the cancerous nodules and tumors are identified using the active contour algorithm. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated on benchmark LIDC database in terms of Dice similarity measure which is 84.88%. Results show the higher performance of the proposed approach in comparison with state-of-the-art methods in this area.
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.
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 it