A Methodology for Evaluating Image Resolution in Experimental Breast Microwave Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast microwave sensing (BMS) is a potential method for breast cancer detection. While radar-based imaging methods have been applied in patient studies, the evaluation of radar-based imaging methods has been limited. Image quality metrics, which aim to quantitatively describe the quality of an image, have been generally limited to descriptors of image contrast. Contrast is only one aspect of image quality - the traditional image quality aspects of image resolution, noise, contrast resolution, accuracy, and artifacts have not been fully addressed in the BMS literature. This work describes methodologies and quantitative metrics for evaluating spatial resolution in BMS. These methods have been applied to evaluate the quality of images produced by the delay-and-sum (DAS), delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS), and optimization-based radar reconstruction (ORR) methods. The spatial resolution of images produced by the DAS and DMAS beamformers was found to be (1.95 ± 0.15) cm and by the ORR algorithm to be (1.65 ± 0.15) cm.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".