The DOI matches its Crossref record.
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PATTERN RECOGNITION TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTION OF MICROCALCIFICATIONS IN MAMMOGRAPHY
Abstract
Computer-assisted detection of microcalcifications in mammographic images will likely require a multistage algorithm that includes segmentation of possible microcalcifications, pattern recognition techniques to classify the segmented objects, a method to determine if a cluster of calcifications exists, and possibly a method to determine the probability of malignancy. This paper focuses on the first three of these stages, and especially on the classification of segmented local bright spots as either calcification or noncalcification. Seven classifiers (linear and quadratic classifiers, binary decision trees, a standard backpropagation network, 2 dynamic neural networks, and a K-nearest neighbor) are compared. In addition, a postprocessing step is performed on objects identified as calcifications by the classifiers to determine if any clusters of microcalcifications exist. A database of digitized film mammograms is used for training and testing. Detection accuracy of individual and clustered microcalcifications is compared across the seven methods using area under the ROC curve as a figure of merit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
Self-citationHe, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
Data Mining for Imbalanced Datasets: An Overview
Chawla, N. V. (2009) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09823-4_45 · Cited by 1,082
Automatic Construction of Decision Trees from Data: A Multi-Disciplinary Survey
Murthy, S. K. (1998) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1023/a:1009744630224 · Cited by 991
Metadata
- Authors
- WOODS, K. S., DOSS, C. C., BOWYER, K. W., SOLKA, J. L., PRIEBE, C. E., & KEGELMEYER, W. P.
- Venue
- International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 07
- Issue
- 06
- Pages
- 1417-1436
- ISSN
- 0218-0014 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-6381
- OpenAlex
- W2065330407
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PATTERN RECOGNITION TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTION OF MICROCALCIFICATIONS IN MAMMOGRAPHY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1142/s0218001493000698
- The paper
- WOODS, K. S., DOSS, C. C., BOWYER, K. W., SOLKA, J. L., PRIEBE, C. E., & KEGELMEYER, W. P. (1993). COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PATTERN RECOGNITION TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTION OF MICROCALCIFICATIONS IN MAMMOGRAPHY. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218001493000698
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.