MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200266605 · doi:10.3390/engproc2021008030

Concentrated Thermomics for Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

2021· article· en· W4200266605 on OpenAlexaff
Bardia Yousefi, Michelle Hershman, Henrique Fernandes, Xavier Maldague

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerAutoencoderNon-negative matrix factorizationArtificial intelligenceBreast cancer screeningMedicineCancerMatrix decompositionPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkRadiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineMammography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermography has been employed broadly as a corresponding diagnostic instrument in breast cancer diagnosis. Among thermographic techniques, deep neural networks show an unequivocal potential to detect heterogeneous thermal patterns related to vasodilation in breast cancer cases. Such methods are used to extract high-dimensional thermal features, known as deep thermomics. In this study, we applied convex non-negative matrix factorization (convex NMF) to extract three predominant bases of thermal sequences. Then, the data were fed into a sparse autoencoder model, known as SPAER, to extract low-dimensional deep thermomics, which were then used to assist the clinical breast exam (CBE) in breast cancer screening. The application of convex NMF-SPAER, combining clinical and demographic covariates, yielded a result of 79.3% (73.5%, 86.9%); the highest result belonged to NMF-SPAER at 84.9% (79.3%, 88.7%). The proposed approach preserved thermal heterogeneity and led to early detection of breast cancer. It can be used as a noninvasive tool aiding CBE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207