GAN-based data augmentation to improve breast Ultrasound and Mammography Mass Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various GAN methods, including Wasserstein GAN with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP), Cycle GAN, Conditional GAN, and Spectral Normalization GAN (SNGAN), were tested for data augmentation in breast regions of interest (ROIs) using mammography and ultrasound databases. The study employed real, synthetic, and hybrid ROIs (128x128 pixels) to train a Resnet network for classifying as benign (B) or malignant (M) classes. The quality and diversity of the synthetic data were assessed using several metrics: Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), Kernel Inception Distance (KID), Structural Similarity Index (SSIM), Multi-Scale SSIM (MS-SSIM), Blind Reference Image Spatial Quality Evaluator (BRISQUE), Naturalness Image Quality Evaluator (NIQE), and Perception-based Image Quality Evaluator (PIQE).Results revealed that the SNGAN model (FID=52.89) was most effective for augmenting mammography data, while CGAN (FID=116.03) excelled with ultrasound data. Cycle GAN and WGAN-GP, though demonstrating lower KID values, did not perform better than SNGAN and CGAN. The lower average MS-SSIM values suggested that SNGAN and CGAN produced a high diversity of synthetic images. However, lower SSIM, BRISQUE, NIQE, and PIQE values indicated poor quality in both real and synthetic images. Classification results showed high accuracy without data augmentation in both US (93.1%B/94.9%M) and mammography (80.9%B/76.9%M).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".