Automated Pulmonary Nodule Classification and Detection Using Deep Learning Architectures
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
Recent advancement in biomedical imaging technologies has contributed to tremendous opportunities for the health care sector and the biomedical community. However, collecting, measuring, and analyzing large volumes of health-related data like images is a laborious and time-consuming job for medical experts. Thus, in this regard, artificial intelligence applications (including machine and deep learning systems) help in the early diagnosis of various contagious/ cancerous diseases such as lung cancer. As lung or pulmonary cancer may have no apparent or clear initial symptoms, it is essential to develop and promote a Computer Aided Detection (CAD) system that can support medical experts in classifying and detecting lung nodules at early stages. Therefore, in this article, we analyze the problem of lung cancer diagnosis by classification and detecting pulmonary nodules, i.e., benign and malignant, in CT images. To achieve this objective, an automated deep learning based system is introduced for classifying and detecting lung nodules. In addition, we use novel state-of-the-art detection architectures, including, Faster-RCNN, YOLOv3, and SSD, for detection purposes. All deep learning models are evaluated using a publicly available benchmark LIDC-IDRI data set. The experimental outcomes reveal that the False Positive Rate (FPR) is reduced, and the accuracy is enhanced.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it