Review and Analysis of Tumour Detection and Image Quality Analysis in Experimental Breast Microwave Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review evaluates the methods used for image quality analysis and tumour detection in experimental breast microwave sensing (BMS), a developing technology being investigated for breast cancer detection. This article examines the methods used for image quality analysis and the estimated diagnostic performance of BMS for image-based and machine-learning tumour detection approaches. The majority of image analysis performed in BMS has been qualitative and existing quantitative image quality metrics aim to describe image contrast-other aspects of image quality have not been addressed. Image-based diagnostic sensitivities between 63 and 100% have been achieved in eleven trials, but only four articles have estimated the specificity of BMS. The estimates range from 20 to 65%, and do not demonstrate the clinical utility of the modality. Despite over two decades of research in BMS, significant challenges remain that limit the development of this modality as a clinical tool. The BMS community should utilize consistent image quality metric definitions and include image resolution, noise, and artifacts in their analyses. Future work should include more robust metrics, estimates of the diagnostic specificity of the modality, and machine-learning applications should be used with more diverse datasets and with robust methodologies to further enhance BMS as a viable clinical technique.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".