Design Guidelines for Mammogram-Based Computer-Aided Systems Using Deep Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second fatal disease among cancers patients both in Canada and across the globe. However, when detected early, a patients’ survival rate can be raised. Thus, researchers and scientists have been practicing to develop Computer-Aided Detection (CADe) and Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CADx) systems. Traditional CAD systems depend on manual feature extraction, which has provided radiologists with poor detection and diagnosis tools. Nevertheless, recently, the powerful application of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)s as one of the deep learning-based methods has revolutionized these systems’ accuracy and development. This article proposes categorizing the current deep learning research on mammogram types based on researchers’ techniques for their empirical studies. Also, we provide an overview of different publicly available data resources and available datasets for breast imaging. This critical review of the state-of-the-art techniques is presented, which we believe can serve as a valuable source for research scientists investigating deep learning-based breast mammogram classification.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".