Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography Images: A CNN-Based Approach with Feature Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prompt and accurate diagnosis of breast lesions, including the distinction between cancer, non-cancer, and suspicious cancer, plays a crucial role in the prognosis of breast cancer. In this paper, we introduce a novel method based on feature extraction and reduction for detection of breast cancer in mammography images. First, we extract features from multiple pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) models, and then concatenate them. The most informative features are selected based on their mutual information with the target variable. Subsequently, the selected features can be classified using a machine learning algorithm. We evaluate our approach using four different machine learning algorithms, and our results demonstrate that the neural network-based classifier yields an accuracy as high as 92% for the RSNA dataset which is a new dataset that provides two views and additional features such as age. We compare our proposed algorithm with state-of-the-art methods and demonstrate its superiority, particularly in terms of accuracy and sensitivity. For the MIAS dataset, we achieve an accuracy as high as 94.5%, and for the DDSM dataset, an accuracy of 96% is attained. These results highlight the effectiveness of our method in accurately diagnosing breast lesions and surpassing existing approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".