MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400395416 · doi:10.58496/mjaih/2024/009

DARKNET-53 Convolutional Neural Network-Based Image Processing for Breast Cancer Detection

2024· article· en· W4400395416 on OpenAlexaff
R. Rajkumar, S. Gopalakrishnan, K. Praveena, M. Venkatesan, K. Ramamoorthy, J. Jasmine Hephzipah

Bibliographic record

VenueMesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceBreast cancerArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Image processingArtificial neural networkImage (mathematics)CancerMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is a common type of cancer in women, denoted by the uncontrolled growth of cells in breast tissue. Thus, manually detecting breast cancer is time-consuming and necessitates automated systems. Existing breast cancer screening methods often have limited efficacy and may delay detection and complicate the individual treatment planning process. However, early detection of breast cancer can be costly and impact the accuracy of diagnosis. To address this issue, we introduce a Darknet-53 Convolutional Neural Network (darknet-53CNN) approach for classifying breast cancer images and improving precision. Furthermore, we utilise the Contrast-Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE) technique to pre-process breast cancer images to enhance image quality. Furthermore, we evaluate the intensity level of pixel images by feature extraction using the Haralick Grey-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix (HGLCM) technique. Finally, the DarkNet-53 CNN method improves the accuracy of detecting breast cancer and classifying images as benign or malignant. The proposed algorithm evaluates the specificity, sensitivity, accuracy and precision of predictive test results based on the classification of breast cancer images. Moreover, the accuracy of the proposed method has increased to 95.6% compared to the methods obtained from previous approaches.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207