Synthetic Versus Classic Data Augmentation: Impacts on Breast Ultrasound Image Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of deep neural networks (DNNs) for the ultrasound image analysis depends on the availability and accuracy of the training data. However, the large-scale data collection and annotation, particularly in medical fields, is often costly and time consuming, especially when healthcare professionals are already burdened with their clinical responsibilities. Ensuring that a model remains robust across different imaging conditions-such as variations in ultrasound devices and manual transducer operation-is crucial in the ultrasound image analysis. The data augmentation is a widely used solution, as it increases both the size and diversity of datasets, thereby enhancing the generalization performance of DNNs. With the advent of generative networks such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) and diffusion-based models, the synthetic data generation has emerged as a promising augmentation technique. However, comprehensive studies comparing classic and generative method-based augmentation methods are lacking, particularly in ultrasound-based breast cancer imaging, where variability in breast density, tumor morphology, and operator skill poses significant challenges. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of classic and generative network-based data augmentation techniques in improving the performance and robustness of breast ultrasound image classification models. Specifically, we seek to determine whether the computational intensity of generative networks is justified in data augmentation. This analysis will provide valuable insights into the role and benefits of each technique in enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of DNN for breast cancer diagnosis. The code for this work will be available at: ht.tps://github.com/yasamin-med/SCDA.git.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".