Dual-Intended Deep Learning Model for Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Ultrasound Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated medical data analysis demonstrated a significant role in modern medicine, and cancer diagnosis/prognosis to achieve highly reliable and generalizable systems. In this study, an automated breast cancer screening method in ultrasound imaging is proposed. A convolutional deep autoencoder model is presented for simultaneous segmentation and radiomic extraction. The model segments the breast lesions while concurrently extracting radiomic features. With our deep model, we perform breast lesion segmentation, which is linked to low-dimensional deep-radiomic extraction (four features). Similarly, we used high dimensional conventional imaging throughputs and applied spectral embedding techniques to reduce its size from 354 to 12 radiomics. A total of 780 ultrasound images-437 benign, 210, malignant, and 133 normal-were used to train and validate the models in this study. To diagnose malignant lesions, we have performed training, hyperparameter tuning, cross-validation, and testing with a random forest model. This resulted in a binary classification accuracy of 78.5% (65.1-84.1%) for the maximal (full multivariate) cross-validated model for a combination of radiomic groups.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".