MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309613861 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29110690

Applying Deep Learning for Breast Cancer Detection in Radiology

2022· review· en· W4309613861 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-Brunswick
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerDeep learningMammographyBreast cancer screeningBreast imagingMedical physicsArtificial intelligenceWorkflowClinical PracticeCancerMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in deep learning have enhanced medical imaging research. Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women, and many applications have been developed to improve its early detection. The purpose of this review is to examine how various deep learning methods can be applied to breast cancer screening workflows. We summarize deep learning methods, data availability and different screening methods for breast cancer including mammography, thermography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. In this review, we will explore deep learning in diagnostic breast imaging and describe the literature review. As a conclusion, we discuss some of the limitations and opportunities of integrating artificial intelligence into breast cancer clinical practice.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.319 · 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