MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401073002 · doi:10.1109/jerm.2024.3430315

Models of Melanoma Growth for Assessment of Microwave-Based Diagnostic Tools

2024· article· en· W4401073002 on OpenAlexafffund
Jasmine Boparai, Rachel Tchinov, Oliver Miller, Yanis Jallouli, Milica Popović

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMelanomaMicrowaveMedical physicsComputer scienceMedicineCancer researchTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malignant melanoma, the aggressive form of skin cancer, progresses via radial and vertical growth. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of microwave-based diagnosis of melanoma at different stages of tumor progression. To this end, we used the physiological data for melanoma progression to develop a theoretical model of melanoma growth, followed by the oil-in-gelatin based tissue phantoms, which aim to mimic the dielectric behavior of the tissues under consideration. The phantoms are then dielectrically characterized using a slim-form open-ended coaxial probe by systematically sampling dielectric values across the mimicked skin surfaces at a range of points over the 0.5 – 26.5 GHz frequency range. The resulting observations revealed that the microwave spectroscopy exhibits the capability not only to distinguish between healthy and malignant skin, but also differentiate between tumors at different stages of vertical growth, which may not be visually discernible from the skin surface. The measured results are compared with the estimated dielectric values of malignant melanoma using Lichteneker's mixing equation obtained from the literature and it was observed that the measured results closely agree with the literature values.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and BiologySame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207