Using Fuzzy Clustering to Detect the Tumor Area in Stomach Medical Images
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
Although the number of stomach tumor patients reduced obviously during last decades in western countries, but this illness is still one of the main causes of death in developing countries. The aim of this research is to detect the area of a tumor in a stomach images based on fuzzy clustering. The proposed methodology consists of three stages. The stomach images are divided into four quarters and then features elicited from each quarter in the first stage by utilizing seven moments invariant. Fuzzy C-Mean clustering (FCM) was employed in the second stage for each quarter to collect the features of each quarter into clusters. Manhattan distance was calculated in the third stage among all clusters' centers in all quarters to disclosure of the quarter that contains a tumor based on the centroid value of the cluster in this quarter, which is far from the centers of the remaining quarters. From the calculations conducted on several images' quarters, the experimental outcomes show that the centroid value of the cluster in each quarter was greater than 0.9 if this quarter did not contain a tumor while the value of the centroid value for the cluster containing a tumor was less than 0.4.For examples, in a quarter no.1 for STOMACH_1 medical image, the centroid value of the cluster was 0.973 while the value of the cluster centroid in quarter no.3 was 0.280. For this reason the tumor area was found in quarter no.(3) of the medical image STOMACH_1. Also, the centroid value of the cluster in a quarter no.2 was 0.948 for STOMACH_2 while, the value of the cluster centroid in quarter no.4 was 0.397. For this reason the tumor area was found in a quarter no.4 of the medical image STOMACH_2.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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