Quantitative Volumetric Analysis Using 3D Ultrasound Tomography for Breast Mass Characterization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer detection remains a significant challenge, with traditional mammography presenting barriers such as discomfort, radiation exposure, high false-positive rates, and financial burden. Moreover, younger women frequently fall outside routine mammographic screening guidelines, leaving critical gaps in early detection. Objectives: This study investigates the potential of quantitative transmission breast acoustic computed tomography scanner imaging (QT3D) as an innovative, non-invasive imaging modality for characterizing and evaluating breast masses. Methods: A comparative analysis between QT3D imaging and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted in a cohort of patients with biopsy-proven benign or malignant breast lesions, comparing key metrics in quantifying breast masses for the purposes of breast mass characterization. Results: The findings in this study highlight its capability in identifying relatively small tumors, multiple lesions, satellite lesions, intraductal extensions, and calcifications, in addition to offering valuable diagnostic insights. Conclusions: This work is a first step toward studies essential for confirming its clinical feasibility, establishing its role in breast cancer tumor characterization, and potentially improving patient outcomes.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it