MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404889079 · doi:10.62527/joiv.8.3-2.1912

Applying Deep Learning Models to Breast Ultrasound Images for Automating Breast Cancer Diagnosis

2024· article· en· W4404889079 on OpenAlexaff
Shihab Hamad Khaleefah, Eva Cabrini Lojungin, Salama A. Mostafa, Zirawani Baharum, Mohammed Hasan Aldulaimi, Taher M. Ghazal, Salam Omar Alo, Rahmat Hidayat

Bibliographic record

VenueJOIV International Journal on Informatics Visualization · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
KeywordsBreast cancerBreast ultrasoundUltrasoundArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMedicineComputer scienceRadiologyMedical physicsCancerInternal medicineMammography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is a result of uncontrolled human cell division. The vast growth of breast cancer patients has been an issue worldwide. Most of the patients are women, but breast cancer also affects men with a much lesser percentage. Breast cancer might lead to death for those who are suffering from it. Numerous types of research have been done to make an early diagnosis of breast cancer. It has been proven that the tumor can be detected by using an ultrasound image. Artificial Intelligence techniques have been used to detect breast cancer fundamentally. This paper studies the effectiveness of deep learning (DL) techniques in automating breast cancer diagnosis. Subsequently, the paper evaluates the diagnosis performance of three DL models utilizing the criteria of accuracy, recall, precision, and f1-score. The Densenet-169, U-Net, and ConvNet DL models are selected based on the examination of the related work. The DL diagnosis process involves identifying two types of breast cancer tumors: benign and malignant. The evaluation outcomes of the DL models show that the most effective model for diagnosing breast cancer among the three is the ConvNet, which achieves an accuracy of 91%, a recall of 83%, a precision of 85%, and an F1-score of 83%.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.328
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 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOIV International Journal on Informatics VisualizationSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207