Advancing Breast Cancer Diagnosis through Breast Mass Images, Machine Learning, and Regression Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer results from a disruption of certain cells in breast tissue that undergo uncontrolled growth and cell division. These cells most often accumulate and form a lump called a tumor, which may be benign (non-cancerous) or malignant (cancerous). Malignant tumors can spread quickly throughout the body, forming tumors in other areas, which is called metastasis. Standard screening techniques are insufficient in the case of metastasis; therefore, new and advanced techniques based on artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and regression models have been introduced, the primary aim of which is to automatically diagnose breast cancer through the use of advanced techniques, classifiers, and real images. Real fine-needle aspiration (FNA) images were collected from Wisconsin, and four classifiers were used, including three machine learning models and one regression model: the support vector machine (SVM), naive Bayes (NB), k-nearest neighbors (k-NN), and decision tree (DT)-C4.5. According to the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity results, the SVM algorithm had the best performance; it was the most powerful computational classifier with a 97.13% accuracy and 97.5% specificity. It also had around a 96% sensitivity for the diagnosis of breast cancer, unlike the models used for comparison, thereby providing an exact diagnosis on the one hand and a clear classification between benign and malignant tumors on the other hand. As a future research prospect, more algorithms and combinations of features can be considered for the precise, rapid, and effective classification and diagnosis of breast cancer images for imperative decisions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".