Comparative Analysis of Texture Patterns on Mammograms for Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a cancerous tumor that arrives within the tissues of the breast. Women are mostly attacked than men. To detect early cancer medical specialists, suggest mammography for screening. Algorithms in Machine learning were executed on mammogram images to classify whether the tissues are deleterious or not. An analysis is done based on the texture feature extraction using different techniques like Frequency decoded local binary pattern (FDLBP), Local Bit-plane Decoded Pattern (LBDP), Local Diagonal Extrema Pattern (LDEP), Local Directional Order Pattern (LDOP), Local Wavelet Pattern (LWP). The features extracted are tested on 322 images from MIA’s database of three different classes. The algorithms in Machine learning like K-Nearest Neighbor classifier (KNN), Support vector classifier (SVC), Decision Tree classifier (DTC), Random Forest classifier (RFC), AdaBoost classifier (AC), Gradient Boosting classifier (GBC), Gaussian Naive Bayes classifier (GNB), Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier (LDA), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis classifier (QDA) were used to evaluate the accuracy of classification. This paper examines the comparison of accuracy using different texture features. KNN algorithm with LDEP for texture feature extraction gives classification accuracy of 64.61%, SVC with all the texture patterns mentioned gives classification accuracy of 63.07%, DTC with FDLBP, LBDP gives classification accuracy of 47.69, RFC with LBDP and AC with LDOP and GBC with FDLBP gives 61.53% classification accuracy, GNB and LDA with FDLBP gives 60% and 63.07% classification accuracy respectively, QDA with LBDP gives 64.61 classification accuracy. Of all the Algorithms support vector classifier gives good accuracy results with all the texture patterns mentioned.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".