Evaluating System Design in Breast Microwave Sensing: Data and Image Quality in Multiple Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous microwave-based breast imaging (MBI) systems have been developed to investigate the potential of microwave-based breast cancer detection. Despite the diversity in system design, relatively little research has compared systems and evaluated the impact of design parameters. This work evaluates the spatial resolution, noise, and shift-dependence of three imaging systems. These systems vary with respect to key design parameters and have been designed for different purposes - a bed-based system was designed for deployment to a permanent clinic, a bench-top system was designed for laboratory use, and a portable prototype system was designed for deployment to remote communities. The bed-based system was found to have the best spatial resolution with respect to both image and data quality, achieving a best-case resolution of <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$(\mathbf{12.4}\pm \mathbf{0.5})\mathbf{mm}$</tex> , and the best signal-to-noise ratio of <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$(\mathbf{26}\pm \mathbf{2})\ \mathbf{dB}$</tex> .
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".