MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298009673 · doi:10.18280/ts.390421

Morphological and Otsu’s Technique Based Mammography Mass Detection and Deep Neural Network Classifier Based Prediction

2022· article· en· W4298009673 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaila Chugh, Sachin Goyal, Anjana Pandey, Sunil K. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceThresholdingMammographyComputer scienceSegmentationOtsu's methodArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Breast cancerPerceptronFeature extractionDeep learningClassifier (UML)Feature selectionImage segmentationCancerImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is a leading cause of death among women. The death rate is reduced when this disease is detected early with the help of mammography. Deep learning is a method that radiologists use and request to help them make more accurate diagnoses and enhance their outcome predictions. This work presents a novel strategy comprising a pre-processing method and a mix of morphological and multi-thresholding using Otsu's technique based segmentation technique, which was tested on the Mini-MIAS dataset of 322 images. For Speed-Up Robust Features (SURF) selection, the inbuilt feature extraction is done utilizing multiple colour and texture features approaches. At the classification level, a new layer is added that performs 70 percent training and 30 percent testing of the deep neural network. There are two primary steps in the training phase: (1) Develop a model for dividing breast tissue into dense and non-dense categories. (2) Develop a model for classifying breast regions into mass and non-mass. The results show that the accuracy rate of the proposed automated DL approach is higher than that of other state-of-the-art models. The average accuracy (ACC) rates of the three types of cancer, i.e., normal, benign, and malignant cancer, utilizing the suggested method are 91 percent, 94 percent, and 93 percent, respectively, according to experimental results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207