Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Features from the Fine Needle Aspirated (FNA) Tissue Samples to Recognize Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the paramount causes of new cancer cases worldwide annually. It is a malignant neoplasm that develops in the breast cells. The early screening of this disease is essential to prevent its metastasis. A mammogram X-ray image is the most common screening tool practiced currently when this disease is suspected; all the breast lesions identified are not malignant. The invasive fine needle aspiration (FNA) of a breast mass sample is the secondary screening tool to clinically examine cancerous lesions. The visual image analysis of the stained aspirated sample imposes a challenge for the cytologist to identify the malignant cells accurately. The formulation of an artificial intelligence-based objective technique on top of the introspective assessment is essential to avoid misdiagnosis. This paper addresses several artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques to diagnose breast cancer from the nuclear features of FNA samples. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer dataset (WBCD) from the UCI machine learning repository is applied for this investigation. Significant statistical parameters are measured to evaluate the performance of the proposed techniques. The best detection accuracy of 98.10% is achieved with a two-layer feed-forward neural network (FFNN). Finally, the developed algorithm's performance is compared with some state-of-the-art works in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".