MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391610047 · doi:10.1080/09500340.2024.2313724

Breast mass regions classification from mammograms using convolutional neural networks and transfer learning.

2023· article· en· W4391610047 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Optics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment Council on Grants, Russian Federation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMammographyComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Digital mammographySegmentationTransfer of learningArtificial neural networkRegion of interestDeep learningIntersection (aeronautics)Breast cancerSørensen–Dice coefficientImage qualityImage segmentationComputer visionImage (mathematics)CancerMedicineCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a novel approach aimed at enhancing the quality of digital mammography images through pre-processing techniques, to improve breast cancer detection accuracy. The primary objective is to enhance image resolution, thus leading to more precise breast tissue segmentation and subsequent classification utilizing convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Three recognized public mammography databases: CBIS-DDSM, Mini-MIAS, and Inbreast were used as pre-processing data. Our statistical findings revealed that the EDSR method (PSNR = 39.05 dB/ SSIM = 0.90) consistently outperformed the visual quality of images when compared to SR-RDN (PSNR = 32.68 dB/SSIM = 0.82). Similarly, UNet demonstrated superior performance over SegNet, boasting an average Intersection over Union (IoU) of 0.862, an average Dice coefficient of 0.991, and an accuracy rate of 0.947 in Region of Interest (RoI) segmentation results. In conclusion, the ResNet model contributed to enhanced accuracy compared to conventional machine learning algorithms. However, it did not surpass state-of-the-art deep CNN-based classifiers, achieving an accuracy rate of 75%.Abbreviations: AUC: Area under curve; CAD: Computer aided system; CC: Cranio caudal; CNN: Convolutional neural network; DNN: Deep neural network; DDSM: Digital Database for Screening Mammography; DM: Digital mammography; DL: Deep learning; EDSR: Enhanced Deep Residual Network; E2E: End to End; ESRGAN: Enhanced Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networks; ESPCN: Efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network; GAN: Generative adversarial network; HR: High resolution; IoU: Intersection over Union; LR: Low resolution; MDSR: Multi-scale deep super-resolution; MLO: Mediolateral Oblique; PSNR: Peak signal to Noise Ratio; RoI: Region of interest; RDN: Residua Dense Network; RDB: Residual Dense Block; RNN: Recurrent Neural Network; ReLU: Rectified Linear Unit; SR-GAN: Super-Resolution Using a Generative Adversarial Network; SSIM: Structural Similarity Index Metric; SISR: Single image super resolution; SegNet: Segmentation Network; TP: True positive; TN: True negative; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; VGG: Visual geometric group; VDSR: Very Deep Network for SR

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.213 · 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