Auto-Diagnosis of Lung Cancer with the Proposed Feature Fusion-Based Hybrid Deep Model
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
Early detection of lung cancer increases the response rate to treatment. Therefore, the accuracy of diagnostic methods is of great importance. Reading the patient's medical images by radiologists can cause a severe time cost besides subjective result. In this context, Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods create an innovative field to reduce the workforce of radiologists and obtain objective results. AI methods play a vital role in improving the analysis of the dataset, extracting meaningful features, clustering, and classification. In our study, the data set contains healthy images besides CT images of malignant and benign tumors with lung cancer; AlexNet is trained using DenseNet 201, GoogleNet, MobileNetV2, and ResNet50 architectures. In addition, a hybrid model has been developed to classify lung CT images. The developed model constitutively used GoogleNet, MobileNetV2, and ResNet50 architectures. The feature maps obtained in these three architectures were combined and classified into different classifiers. Among the classifiers used in the study, the highest accuracy rate was achieved in the Ensemble Subspace KNN classifier. The accuracy value obtained in this classifier is 98.3%.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it