MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307918986 · doi:10.1002/cpe.7348

Breast lesion identification and categorization using mammography screening based on combined convolutional recursive neural network framework with parameters optimized using multi‐objective seagull optimization algorithm

2022· article· en· W4307918986 on OpenAlexaff
N. K. Sakthivel, S. Subasree, Pachhaiammal Alias Priya M, Amit Kumar Tyagi

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMammographyConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmIdentification (biology)Machine learningBreast cancerCancerMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In recent years, a number of learning methods have been adopted for classifying the mammogram images, which helps the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. The breast lesion identification and categorization using mammography screening based on combined convolutional neural network and recursive neural network (CRNN) framework with parameters optimized using multi‐objective seagull optimization algorithm (BLIC‐CRNN‐MOSOA) is proposed in this article. Initially, the unnecessary noise components are taken away from the mammogram images and the quality of the images are enhanced based on altered phase preserving dynamic range compression filtering approach. Then, the deep CRNN model with weight parameters optimized using multi‐objective seagull optimization algorithm is adopted for classifying the mammogram images into three categories: (i) normal, (ii) benign, and (iii) malignant masses. The proposed BLIC‐CRNN‐MOSOA approach is executed in MATLAB platform, and its performance is compared with other deep learning classification approaches. Then the simulation performance of the proposed BLIC‐CRNN‐MOSOA method attains higher accuracy 99.67%, 98.38%, and 97.45%, higher sensitivity 98.33%, 89.34%, and 88.96%, higher specificity 93.15%, 91.25%, and 92.88% compared with existing methods, like BLIC‐FrCN, BLIC‐ICS‐ELM, and BLIC‐DCNN‐BO. By this, the proposed method achieves higher classification accuracy with less misclassified error. Finally, the simulation results show that the proposed method is more efficient than the other classification methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207