BreastNet18: A High Accuracy Fine-Tuned VGG16 Model Evaluated Using Ablation Study for Diagnosing Breast Cancer from Enhanced Mammography Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification and treatment of breast cancer at an early stage can reduce mortality. Currently, mammography is the most widely used effective imaging technique in breast cancer detection. However, an erroneous mammogram based interpretation may result in false diagnosis rate, as distinguishing cancerous masses from adjacent tissue is often complex and error-prone. METHODS: Six pre-trained and fine-tuned deep CNN architectures: VGG16, VGG19, MobileNetV2, ResNet50, DenseNet201, and InceptionV3 are evaluated to determine which model yields the best performance. We propose a BreastNet18 model using VGG16 as foundational base, since VGG16 performs with the highest accuracy. An ablation study is performed on BreastNet18, to evaluate its robustness and achieve the highest possible accuracy. Various image processing techniques with suitable parameter values are employed to remove artefacts and increase the image quality. A total dataset of 1442 preprocessed mammograms was augmented using seven augmentation techniques, resulting in a dataset of 11,536 images. To investigate possible overfitting issues, a k-fold cross validation is carried out. The model was then tested on noisy mammograms to evaluate its robustness. Results were compared with previous studies. RESULTS: Proposed BreastNet18 model performed best with a training accuracy of 96.72%, a validating accuracy of 97.91%, and a test accuracy of 98.02%. In contrast to this, VGGNet19 yielded test accuracy of 96.24%, MobileNetV2 77.84%, ResNet50 79.98%, DenseNet201 86.92%, and InceptionV3 76.87%. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed approach based on image processing, transfer learning, fine-tuning, and ablation study has demonstrated a high correct breast cancer classification while dealing with a limited number of complex medical images.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".