MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395074559 · doi:10.18280/ria.380207

Mammographic Masses Descriptor for Breast Cancer Classification and Automatic Diagnosis

2024· article· en· W4395074559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed El Amine Yermes, Mohammed Salem, Khalifa Djemal

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerArtificial intelligenceBI-RADSMammographyPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineComputer scienceCancerRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automatic breast cancer diagnosis is a challenging task because breast masses have a random appearance and vary in size and shape.A descriptor is an algorithm that quantifies elementary characteristics such as color, texture, contour, or shape.In digital mammography, numerous descriptors have been employed to differentiate between benign and malignant tumor patterns, but automatic diagnosis remains a difficult function.In this paper, we proposed a novel approach based on local features to describe masses in mammograms via Polygon Approximation Triangle-Area Representation (PATAR).As the degree of spiculation in masse defines their level of malignancy, the strength of our approach lies in its ability to isolate and measure spiculations in breast masses.PATAR is a robust image descriptor composed of two steps: polygon approximation and triangle-area representation.Firstly, we applied a polygon approximation to the masses to raise the most critical spiculations and lobulations.Then, by browsing the points of the polygon, calculate the triangle's area formed by the vertices of the polygon, ears, and mouths.The extracted characteristics describe the shape and show the severity of spiculations with high precision.Digital mammography CBIS-DDSM is used to evaluate the method with a Fuzzy C-Means classifier, Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Random Forest (RF).The Random Forest classifier achieved the best performance, reaching 97,94%.The proposed method provides a fully automated diagnosis with the best accuracy and invariance to scale and rotation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207