MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409981303 · doi:10.18280/ts.420247

Identifications of Lung Cancer Using Kernel Weighted Fuzzy Local Information C-Means Algorithm

2025· article· en· W4409981303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Karthikeyan, Subbarayan Kalaiselvi, John Bosco Joselin Jeya Sheela, Maram Ashok

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicKernel (algebra)AlgorithmComputer scienceLung cancerPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsMedicinePathologyDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An improved version of the Fuzzy C-Means (FCM) method called Kernel Weighted Fuzzy Local Information C-Means (KWFLICM), which incorporates a Kernel Distance Measure (KDM), and a trade-off Weighted Fuzzy Factor (WFF) for image segmentation is proposed.The WFF considers spatial distance and the intensity difference of all pixels in the surrounding area simultaneously.The KWFLICM algorithm uses WFF to precisely determine the damping extent of pixels next to one another.The target function is improved by adding KDM, making it even more robust to noise and outliers.Adaptive kernel parameters are determined using an efficient bandwidth selection mechanism.The distance variance of each data point is used to calculate these parameters via a process of comparison.The KDM and the parameter-free WFF trade-off improve the segmentation accuracy of the KWFLICM algorithm.Simulation results on actual and simulated images show that the KWFLICM algorithm performs well against noisy images.KWFLICM's combination of kernel mapping and spatial weighting enables it to produce better segmentation and classification results in lung cancer identification.The KWFLICM algorithm's noise resilience, accurate boundary detection, and sensitivity to small or complex tumor structures make it especially valuable in lung cancer detection on two benchmark databases, including LIDC and ELCAP.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207