Classification of Breast Masses in Mammograms Using Radial Basis Functions and Simulated Annealing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present pattern classification methods based upon nonlinear and combinational optimization techniques, specifically, radial basis functions (RBF) and simulated annealing (SA), to classify masses in mammograms as malignant or benign. Combinational optimization is used to pre-estimate RBF parameters, namely, the centers and spread matrix. The classifier was trained and tested, using the leave-one-out procedure, with shape, texture, and edge-sharpness measures extracted from 57 regions of interest (20 related to malignant tumors and 37 related to benign masses) manually delineated on mammograms by a radiologist. The classifier’s performance, with pre-estimation of the parameters, was evaluated in terms of the area Az under the receiver operating characteristics curve. Values up to Az = 0.9997 were obtained with RBF-SA with pre-estimation of the centers and spread matrix, which are better than the results obtained with pre-estimation of only the RBF centers, which were up to 0.9470. Overall, the results with the RBF-SA method were better than those provided by standard multilayer perceptron neural networks
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".