MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning based Reconstruction of Point-Like Scatterers in a Portable Microwave Detection Device

2023· article· en· W4378842507 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Fontaine, Stephen Pistorius

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowaveComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Microwave imagingConvolutional neural networkBandwidth (computing)RadarArtificial neural networkSupport vector machineTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to breast cancer screening is limited in low-income and remote areas, resulting in late-stage diagnosis and increased mortality rates. A portable microwave system was created by minimizing the device cost, size, and complexity. The small, cylindrical device features twenty-six patch antennas and inexpensive vector network analyzers operating from 0.7 - 3 GHz. A microwave radar model was modified to simulate S <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">11</inf> measurements of the physical device. Radar simulations were performed on numerical phantoms consisting of two rod-like point scatterers with varying reflectivities of 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, or 100%. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to directly reconstruct the rod phantoms from their simulated S <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">11</inf> sinograms. Despite the narrow bandwidth, the CNN could detect point scatterers with an accuracy up to 85%, improving on conventional resolving capabilities. Artificial intelligence microwave sensing methods offer promising possibilities for automated, low-cost breast cancer screening.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207