Investigations on Deep Learning Techniques for Analysing Mammograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammograms have been acknowledged as one of the most reliable screening tools as well as a key diagnostic mechanism for early breast cancer detection. Though mammography is a valuable screening tool for detecting malignant growth in breasts, its competence as a diagnostic tool is heavily reliant on the radiologists’ understanding. Automated systems are now widely used for detection of breast cancer. Image processing techniques were widely used in automated systems for classifying mammograms. Of late with the advent of deep learning (DL) where images can be processed directly for classification, the DL is widely researched for medical image classification. Basically, DL techniques are representation-learning methods which aid in understanding data like sounds, images as well as texts. DL algorithms have the ability to learn multiple levels of representation as well as abstraction. Residual network (ResNet) is given due consideration as a kind of highly advanced Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). This work has offered a potential application of Visual Geometry Group (VGG), Residual network (ResNet) and Inception based CNN model for differentiating the mammograms into the abnormal class and the normal class. Experimental results demonstrated that the deep learners are effective for classifying mammograms and Inception deep learner achieved the best accuracy of 91.49%.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".