Assessment of Microwave Breast Imaging System Stability Across CC and MLO Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microwave imaging is a safe, affordable, and convenient technology, making it a promising option for breast treatment monitoring, which often requires frequent scans over short intervals. To ensure effective monitoring of breast changes during treatment, it is crucial to verify the stability of measurements across different scans. In this study, a high-resolution microwave transmission system is used to scan the breasts of a healthy volunteer. The consistency of permittivity reconstruction for the volunteer is evaluated over three separate scans. The permittivity reconstructions for both breasts across the scans are presented, and stability is assessed using both average permittivity values and threshold-based regions. Additionally, a novel microwave mediolateral oblique (MLO) view of the breast, achieved by tilting the microwave system by 45 degrees is introduced for the first time alongside the conventional craniocaudal (CC) view. These views are analogous to those commonly used in mammography. The stability of permittivity reconstruction in both the CC and MLO views is demonstrated. At the time of the conference, results from a larger cohort of volunteers will also be presented to further validate the stability of the system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".