MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411270860 · doi:10.1109/jerm.2025.3572116

Breast Cancer Detection Using a Metasurface-Based Microwave Probe

2025· article· en· W4411270860 on OpenAlexaff
Mauricio Hernández, Hamid Akbari–Chelaresi, Ghazaleh Tashtarian, Omar M. Ramahi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Electromagnetics RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowaveCancer detectionMicrowave imagingCancerBreast cancerMaterials scienceComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunicationsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work introduces an electromagnetic energy scanning technique with specific application to the detection of breast cancer. The technique is based on a metasurface field detector probe composed of an ensemble of electrically small elements resonating at 700 MHz, where the middle single element represents the field detector. The sensor scans the two-dimensional plane that contains the energy transmitted through the breast. Once the scan is completed, we generate a contrast image composed of N X N pixels that represent the different components of the breast tissue. We then compile a dataset of these contrast images to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy breast tissue. Thie probe provides a resolution that cannot be matched by either electrically small probes or resonance-based probes that have dimensions comparable to the wavelength. The field emanating from a specific structure, such as a human female breast, can be scanned by the proposed probe to achieve a resolution in the millimeter range while operating in the low-microwave frequency spectrum. The probe was tested numerically, and a prototype was tested experimentally, demonstrating its effectiveness in providing a field resolution of approximately 5 mm.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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