Full Field Digital Mammography Dataset from a Population Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer presents the second largest cancer risk in the world to women. Early detection of cancer has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality. Population screening programs schedule regular mammography imaging for participants, promoting early detection. Currently, such screening programs require manual reading. False-positive errors in the reading process unnecessarily leads to costly follow-up and patient anxiety. Automated methods promise to provide more efficient, consistent and effective reading. To facilitate their development, a number of datasets have been created. Such datasets can aid in learning-based development but many are not publicly available and do not draw directly from population screening programs. With the aim of specifically targeting population screening programs, we introduce NL-Breast-Screening, a dataset from a Canadian provincial screening program. The dataset consists of 5997 mammography exams, each of which has four standard views and is biopsy-confirmed. Cases where radiologists' reading was a false-positive are identified. NL-Breast-Screening is made publicly available as a new resource to promote advances in automation for population screening programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".