MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393333906 · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106255

Gan-based data augmentation to improve breast ultrasound and mammography mass classification

2024· article· en· W4393333906 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

VenueBiomedical Signal Processing and Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyComputer scienceUltrasoundBreast ultrasoundMedicineArtificial intelligenceBreast cancerMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data imbalance is a common problem in breast cancer diagnosis, to address this challenge, the research explores the use of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) to generate synthetic medical data. Various GAN methods, including Wasserstein GAN with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP), Cycle GAN, Conditional GAN, and Spectral Normalization GAN (SNGAN), were tested for data augmentation in breast regions of interest (ROIs) using mammography and ultrasound databases. The study employed real, synthetic, and hybrid ROIs (128x128 pixels) to train a Resnet network for classifying as benign (B) or malignant (M) classes. The quality and diversity of the synthetic data were assessed using several metrics: Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), Kernel Inception Distance (KID), Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), Multi-Scale SSIM (MS-SSIM), Blind Reference Image Spatial Quality Evaluator (BRISQUE), Naturalness Image Quality Evaluator (NIQE), and Perception-based Image Quality Evaluator (PIQE).Results revealed that the SNGAN model (FID = 52.89) was most effective for augmenting mammography data, while CGAN (FID = 116.03) excelled with ultrasound data. Cycle GAN and WGAN-GP, though demonstrating lower KID values, did not perform better than SNGAN and CGAN. The lower average MS-SSIM values suggested that SNGAN and CGAN produced a high diversity of synthetic images. However, lower SSIM, BRISQUE, NIQE, and PIQE values indicated poor quality in both real and synthetic images. Classification results showed high accuracy without data augmentation in both US (93.1 %B/94.9 %M) and mammography (80.9 %B/76.9 %M). The research concludes that preprocessing and characterizing ROIs by abnormality type is crucial to generate diverse synthetic data and improve accuracy in the classification process using combined GANs and CNN models.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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