Deep learning for computer-aided abnormalities classification in digital mammogram: A data-centric perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women, and early abnormality detection using mammography can significantly improve breast cancer survival rates. Diverse datasets are required to improve the training and validation of deep learning (DL) systems for autonomous breast cancer diagnosis. However, only a small number of mammography datasets are publicly available. This constraint has created challenges when comparing different DL models using the same dataset. The primary contribution of this study is the comprehensive description of a selection of currently available public mammography datasets. The information available on publicly accessible datasets is summarized and their usability reviewed to enable more effective models to be developed for breast cancer detection and to improve understanding of existing models trained using these datasets. This study aims to bridge the existing knowledge gap by offering researchers and practitioners a valuable resource to develop and assess DL models in breast cancer diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it