Classification of breast masses in mammograms using neural networks with shape, edge sharpness, and texture features
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
We propose an approach using artificial neural networks to classify masses in mammograms as malignant or benign. Single-layer and multilayer perceptron networks are used in a study on perceptron topologies and training procedures for pattern classification of breast masses. The contours of a set of 111 regions on mammograms related to breast masses and tumors are manually delineated and represented by polygonal models for shape analysis. Ribbons of pixels are extracted around the boundaries of a subset of 57 masses by dilating and eroding the contours. Three shape factors, three measures of edge sharpness, and 14 texture features based on gray-level co-occurrence matrices of the pixels in the ribbons are computed. Several combinations of the features are used with perceptrons of varying topology and training procedures for the classification of benign masses and malignant tumors. The results are compared in terms of the area Az under the receiver operating characteristics curve. Values of Az up to 0.99 are obtained with the shape factors and texture features. However, only feature sets that included at least one shape factor provide consistently high performance with respect to variations in network topology and training.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it