Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Decoding Breast Cancer in X-ray Mammograms: A Multi-Parameter Approach Using Fractals, Multifractals, and Structural Disorder Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that four quantitative image measures—fractal dimension, multifractal spectrum width, a Gaussian-transformed fractal parameter, and inverse-participation-ratio disorder—separate malignant from benign mammograms.

desk verdict Interesting exploratory scan, but the central biomarker claim is an artifact of choosing thresholds on the same 80 images, so it is not publishable as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21080 v1 pith:BHETFTJU submitted 2025-05-27 physics.med-ph physics.app-phphysics.bio-phphysics.optics

Santanu Maity , Mousa Alrubayan , Prabhakar Pradhan This is my paper
classification physics.med-phphysics.app-phphysics.bio-phphysics.optics
keywords breastcancermammographyfractaldimensionmultifractalanalysisinverseparticipationratiostructuraldisordergray-scalethresholdquantitativebiomarker
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes that four quantitative image-derived measures—box-counting fractal dimension, multifractal spectrum shape, a functional transform of the fractal dimension, and the inverse participation ratio (IPR) of a tight-binding model—can separate malignant from benign breast tissue in X-ray mammograms. It reports that malignant samples have higher average fractal dimension, broader multifractal spectra, larger mean and standard deviation of the log-transformed functional fractal parameter, and higher IPR values. The authors also show that the gray-scale threshold used to binarize images changes these parameters, and that benign and malignant tissue peak at different thresholds. If the result holds, these parameters would be low-cost, automated quantitative biomarkers for breast cancer screening.

What carries the argument

Box-counting computes the fractal dimension $D_f = \ln(N(r))/\ln(1/r)$. The multifractal spectrum $f(\alpha)$ versus $\alpha$ is obtained via the Chhabra–Jensen direct method. The functional transformation $D_{\rm tf} = D_f/(D_{\rm f\!max} - D_f)$ with $D_{\rm f\!max}=2$ unfolds the distribution so that $\ln(D_{\rm tf})$ becomes Gaussian. IPR is computed from Anderson tight-binding eigenfunctions, and the mean IPR scales with the disorder strength $L_d = \langle dn \rangle \cdot l_c$. These objects supply the quantitative parameters whose differences between benign and malignant tissue are the paper's central evidence.

What would settle it

Apply the fixed optimal thresholds reported here (50.78% for Mean($D_f$), 31% for STD($D_f$), 37% for the mean of $\ln(D_{\rm tf})$, and 31.25% for STD($\ln(D_{\rm tf})$) ) to an independent mammogram set with known labels. If the benign-malignant separations do not reproduce at these fixed thresholds, the optimal-threshold differences are fitting artifacts rather than predictive biomarkers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 40 benign and 40 malignant mammograms from a public dataset, the paper reports consistent differences across all four methods: Mean($D_f$) is 5.06% higher in malignant tissue at a 50.78% intensity threshold, STD($D_f$) is 13.38% higher at 31%, the mean of $\ln(D_{\rm tf})$ is 14.33% higher at 37%, STD($\ln(D_{\rm tf})$) is 19.32% higher at 31.25%, and mean IPR and STD(IPR) are 22.46% and 36.62% higher respectively. It claims these differences are statistically meaningful and complementary, together giving a multi-parameter framework for distinguishing malignancy. It further claims that the functional transform makes fractal measures Gaussian-distributed, easing numerical comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the optimal gray-scale thresholds (50.78%, 37%, 31.25%, and 31%) were identified on the same 80 images used to report the separation, so the differentiation is established only if those thresholds generalize to new mammograms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, the four parameters could be computed automatically from standard mammograms to aid radiologists, with no extra imaging required.
  • The threshold trajectory itself—malignant tissue reaching fractal optima at different gray-scale levels than benign—could serve as an additional diagnostic cue.
  • Combining fractal, multifractal, functional, and IPR metrics should yield higher separability than any single metric, supporting a multi-parameter screening aid.
  • The functional transform into Gaussian space gives simple summary statistics, mean and standard deviation, that are easier to compare across patients and imaging systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the optimal thresholds are selected on the same 80-image cohort, the quoted percentage separations likely overestimate predictive performance; an independent validation or cross-validation would be needed to know the true diagnostic value.
  • The threshold-scan response curves could be treated as continuous features, potentially carrying more information than the single optimal-threshold values and avoiding threshold-selection bias.
  • The same functional-transform and IPR pipeline could transfer to other 2D modalities such as digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or CT, where sparse intensity distributions also complicate fractal analysis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 40 benign and 40 malignant mammogram images from a public dataset. It computes box-counting fractal dimensions at grayscale thresholds from 10% to 60%, multifractal spectra, a functional transformation of the fractal dimension, and IPR-based structural disorder metrics. The authors report threshold-dependent separations between benign and malignant groups, with percentage increases of 5.06% to 19.32% in various parameters, and conclude that these metrics provide powerful, complementary biomarkers for distinguishing malignant from benign breast tissue.

Significance. If the reported separations survived independent validation, threshold-dependent fractal and disorder metrics could be a low-cost, image-based addition to breast cancer diagnostics. The paper has the merit of using a public dataset and combining several complementary descriptors, and the threshold-trajectory idea is potentially interesting. However, as presented, the evidence does not support the central claim: the 'optimal' thresholds are selected on the same data used to evaluate the separation, no independent validation or uncertainty quantification is provided, and the IPR section rests on a physically questionable intensity-to-density mapping. The work is therefore more a hypothesis-generating study than a validated diagnostic framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2.3, 4.3; Figures 2, 6-8] The 'optimal' thresholds (50.78%, 31%, 37%, 31.25%) are chosen by scanning a 10-60% threshold grid and picking the point of maximum benign/malignant separation on the same 80 images that are then used to report the separation. Under the null hypothesis of no group difference, the maximum of roughly 51 comparisons is expected to be inflated, yet no multiple-comparison correction, confidence intervals, or held-out validation are reported. The percentage increases (5.06%, 13.38%, 14.33%, 19.32%) and the associated Gaussian fits therefore cannot be taken as evidence of predictive discrimination, and the paper does not specify how a threshold would be chosen for a new mammogram.
  2. [Table 1 and accompanying t-test statement] Table 1 reports multifractal parameters with no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no test statistics, despite the text stating that a Student's t-test was performed. The differences are small (e.g., Δα = 0.1560 vs. 0.1605; Δf = 0.2260 vs. 0.2334), and the text itself admits that 'statistical significance ... may not be consistently strong.' This undercuts the later conclusion that multifractal parameters are 'powerful' discriminators, unless quantitative evidence of significance and effect size is provided.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (6)-(12)] The chain I(x,y) ∝ n(x,y) ∝ ρ(x,y) is not established for X-ray mammography. Beer-Lambert's law in Eq. (1) gives I = I0 exp(−μz), and while μ depends on density, the relative variation dI/I is not generally proportional to dρ/ρ in a two-dimensional projection; nor is the X-ray refractive index proportional to mass density in the relevant energy range. The IPR disorder metric, and the reported 22.46% and 36.62% changes, therefore rest on an unvalidated mapping and should be treated as a modeling assumption rather than a quantitative measure of tissue mass-density disorder.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Figure 7] The claim that P(ln(Dtf)) is a 'well-defined Gaussian profile with chi-square goodness-of-fit scores exceeding 90%' is not supported by reported statistics: no chi-square values, degrees of freedom, or comparisons to alternative distributions are given, and the fits are performed at thresholds selected post hoc on the same data. The mean and standard deviation of ln(Dtf) are then used as robust biomarkers, and the 'virtual fractal' concept is motivated mainly by a self-cited preprint [13]; this circularity needs to be broken by pre-specifying the transformation and validating the distributional assumption on independent data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3] The section numbering is inconsistent: '3.2 Multifractal Analysis of Breast Cancer Mammograms' is followed by another '3.2 Multifractal Formalism of Breast Cancer Mammograms,' and there is no section 3.1 heading; please renumber the sections.
  2. [Equation (4)] Equation (4) introduces τQ without defining it clearly, and the relation f(αQ) = Q αQ − τQ = ∑(µi ln µi)/ln ε conflates the Legendre transform with the direct spectrum formula; please clarify the notation and the computational recipe.
  3. [Figure 3] Figure 3(b) is described as 'P(ln(Df)) vs Df' but the horizontal axis should be ln(Df); please correct the label.
  4. [Figures 7 and 8] The optimal thresholds for the standard deviation of ln(Dtf) are reported as 31% in Figure 7(b) and 31.25% in Figure 8(b), and Section 4.3 says 'around 40%'; please make the values and text consistent.
  5. [Data availability] The dataset is publicly available with DOI 10.17632/ywsbh3ndr8.2, but the Data Availability Statement says data are available from the corresponding author upon request; please cite the dataset directly and state that it is publicly accessible.
  6. [Methods] The box-counting scale range, the number of box sizes, and the preprocessing of the mammograms (cropping, normalization) are not specified; please provide these details to make the analysis reproducible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Post-hoc selection of 'optimal' thresholds on the same 40+40 images supplies the reported separations and effect sizes; the central discrimination claim is therefore a fitted maximum, not a validated prediction, with Gaussianity additionally imported from a self-cited preprint.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, Fig. 2 caption and text; see also Section 4.4, Figs. 7-8]
    "Both plots reveal distinct peak patterns that differ between benign and malignant breast tissues. These differences indicate an optimal threshold value at which the separation in D f characteristics between the two classes is most pronounced. Figure 2(a) illustrates the maximum difference in the mean fractal dimension between benign and malignant tissues, which occurs at an optimal threshold of 50.78%."

    The thresholds are not fixed before analysis. They are found by scanning a 10%-60% grid on the same 40 benign and 40 malignant images that are later used to report the separation. Selecting the maximum of roughly 51 correlated comparisons guarantees an apparent optimum somewhere on the grid even under the null hypothesis of no group difference. The reported effect sizes (5.06%, 13.38%, 14.33%, 19.32%) and the Gaussian fits with chi-square scores above 90% are all evaluated at these chosen maxima, with no multiple-comparison correction, confidence interval, or held-out validation. The 'differentiation' is therefore a fitted maximum, not an independent or predictive result.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Eq. (5) and surrounding text; reference [13]]
    "Here, we introduced a new fractal dimension variable for quantification by applying a pointwise functional transformation to the fractal dimension Df. We recently introduced and analyzed a new distribution function associated with direct fractal-functional transformations to make the m a normal/Gaussian distribution... It has been demonstrated that the new function's log-normal distribution has a Gaussian form, or the P(ln(Dtf)) distribution form is a Gaussian, whose mean and standard deviation follow a better pattern to handle an increasing pattern or parameter value."

    The Gaussianity of ln(Dtf), which justifies using its mean and standard deviation as the functional-distribution biomarkers, is not derived or independently tested in this manuscript. It is imported from the authors' own arXiv preprint (ref. [13], with the same first four authors). The transformation Dtf = Df/(2-Df) is presented as if this Gaussian property were an established mathematical fact, but the only support offered here is the self-citation. Because the subsequent threshold-scan analysis is built on these mean/STD values, the Gaussianity claim is load-bearing rather than an independent external result.

full rationale

The main circularity is the threshold optimization. Sections 2.3 and 4.3-4.4 scan thresholds from 10% to 60%, locate the maximum benign/malignant difference on the same 40+40 images, and then report those maximal differences and the corresponding Gaussian fits as evidence of discrimination. This is equivalent to reporting the maximum of many correlated comparisons; under the null, an apparent optimum would still appear somewhere in the grid. No held-out images, pre-registered thresholds, confidence intervals, or multiple-comparison corrections are reported. Because every claimed parameter (Mean(Df), STD(Df), Mean(ln(Dtf)), STD(ln(Dtf))) is assessed at its own selected threshold on the same images, the multi-parameter claim inherits the same selection flaw. Separately, the Gaussianity of the transformed distribution is delegated to the authors' own arXiv preprint, making that premise self-citation-load-bearing. The box-counting, multifractal, and IPR measurements themselves are not tautological, and the paper is not circular merely because it uses established descriptors; the circularity lies in selecting the thresholds that maximize the reported differences and then presenting those maxima as validated differentiation. This warrants a score of 7 rather than higher because the raw measurements are real and the threshold issue is an empirical selection artifact, but the central discrimination claim is not yet independently supported.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's results rest on a chain of unverified assumptions and fitted choices: an intensity-to-density mapping for mammograms, the applicability of Anderson tight-binding localization to those maps, the assertion that ln(Dtf) is Gaussian (supported only by chi-square fits on 40-sample histograms), and a post hoc selection of 'optimal' thresholds. The main numerical claims are threshold-dependent, and those thresholds are fitted to maximize separation in the same dataset.

free parameters (7)
  • Optimal threshold for mean Df separation = 50.78%
    Chosen in Fig. 2(a) as the threshold where benign vs malignant mean Df difference is largest; this value is then used to report 1.3687 vs 1.4379. Not prespecified or cross-validated.
  • Optimal threshold for STD(Df) separation = ~31%
    Chosen in Fig. 2(b) as max STD separation; used to report 0.3049 vs 0.3457.
  • Optimal threshold for mean ln(Dtf) separation = 37%
    Chosen as max separation in mean ln(Dtf); used to report 2.1635 vs 2.4735.
  • Optimal threshold for STD(ln(Dtf)) separation = 31.25%
    Chosen as max separation in STD(ln(Dtf)); used to report 1.6222 vs 1.9357.
  • Df-max in functional transform = 2
    Eq. (5) defines Dtf = Df/(Df-max - Df) with Df-max=2; this normalization determines the tail behavior and the reported Gaussian-shaped distribution. It is a modeling choice, not derived from data.
  • Tight-binding hopping parameter t = not specified (presumably 1)
    Eq. (8) includes nearest-neighbor hopping t; the IPR values depend on t, but the paper never states its value or units.
  • Box-counting scale range / box sizes = not specified
    Fractal dimension from Eq. (3) depends on the range of box sizes and fitting; not described.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Beer-Lambert relation I(z)=I0 exp(-mu z) and proportionality dI/I proportional to dm/m proportional to d rho/rho
    Used in Section II.1.2 (Eqs. 1-2) to link X-ray intensity to mass density. This ignores scatter, beam hardening, and the projection nature of mammography.
  • domain assumption X-ray intensity is proportional to refractive index n(x,y) and density rho(x,y), i.e., I proportional to n proportional to rho
    Eqs. (6)-(7) assert this mapping to justify IPR on mammograms. In reality, the X-ray refractive index is n approx 1 - delta, and intensity depends on attenuation, not directly n; this is an unvalidated assumption.
  • domain assumption Anderson tight-binding model (Eq. 8) is the appropriate model for X-ray mammogram intensity maps
    Section 5.1 uses the TBM with on-site potential epsilon_i from Eq. (7), but no justification is given that 2D mammograms satisfy this model or that eigenfunctions/localization are meaningful.
  • ad hoc to paper P(ln(Dtf)) follows a Gaussian distribution
    Central to the functional-fractal method (Section 4.4). The paper asserts Gaussianity based on chi-square goodness-of-fit >90% on N=40 samples; no derivation is given, and chi-square on binned histograms is a weak criterion.
  • standard math Multifractal formalism of Chhabra-Jensen (Eq. 4) applies to pixel-based mass probabilities
    Taken from ref [29]; this is standard multifractal analysis and is not the main weakness.
  • domain assumption The 80 selected mammograms (40 benign, 40 malignant) are representative and free from selection bias
    Section II.1.1 says 'we selected 40 mammograms from benign cases and 40 from malignant cases' with no criteria. If selection favored images with obvious differences, all downstream results are biased.
  • domain assumption IPR proportionality Ld ~ <dn>*lc with constants of proportionality = 1 (Eqs. 11-12)
    Taken from the authors' prior work (refs 17-22); no independent measurement of <dn> or lc is provided in this paper.
invented entities (3)
  • Virtual fractal
    purpose: Defined in Section 4.4 as the fractal dimension at the optimal threshold, i.e., the maximum fractality; proposed as a diagnostic concept.
    The paper introduces the term to describe the threshold at which Df is maximal, but gives no independent validation or definition beyond the fitted optimal threshold.
  • Fractal-functional distribution (P(ln Dtf))
    purpose: A Gaussian-like representation of fractal dimension intended to enable simple mean/STD biomarkers.
    This is the 'recently developed' method from arXiv:2412.19532 by the same authors. In this paper it is applied but not independently validated; its Gaussian character is asserted from a chi-square fit on the same data.
  • Ld-IPR disorder measure
    purpose: A structural disorder parameter defined as <dn>*lc and claimed proportional to mean IPR and STD(IPR) (Eqs. 11-12).
    Introduced in prior papers by the same group (refs 17-22); this manuscript applies it to mammograms but does not measure <dn> or lc independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding Breast Cancer in X-ray Mammograms: A Multi-Parameter Approach Using Fractals, Multifractals, and Structural Disorder Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHETFTJU

@misc{pith2026250521080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding Breast Cancer in X-ray Mammograms: A Multi-Parameter Approach Using Fractals, Multifractals, and Structural Disorder Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHETFTJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21080}
}
read the original abstract

We explored the fractal and multifractal characteristics of breast mammogram micrographs to identify quantitative biomarkers associated with breast cancer progression. In addition to conventional fractal and multifractal analyses, we employed a recently developed fractal-functional distribution method, which transforms fractal measures into Gaussian distributions for more robust statistical interpretation. Given the sparsity of mammogram intensity data, we also analyzed how variations in intensity thresholds, used for binary transformations of the fractal dimension, follow unique trajectories that may serve as novel indicators of disease progression. Our findings demonstrate that fractal, multifractal, and fractal-functional parameters effectively differentiate between benign and cancerous tissue. Furthermore, the threshold-dependent behavior of intensity-based fractal measures presents distinct patterns in cancer cases. To complement these analyses, we applied the Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR) light localization technique to quantify structural disorder at the microscopic level. This multi-parametric approach, integrating spatial complexity and structural disorder metrics, offers a promising framework for enhancing the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21080 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Bar graphs of the mean fractal dimension (Mean(Df)) for benign and malignant breast tissues indicate that malignant tissues exhibit a higher mean Df value, with a percentage increase of 5.06% compared to benign tissues, at ~50% threshold. (b) Bar graphs of the standard deviation of fractal dimension (STD(Df)) show that malignant tissues also have a higher STD(Df), with a 13.38% increase relative to benign tissue… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    C.-J. Lai, Y. Zhong, Y. Yi, T. Wang, and C. C. Shaw, Radiation doses in volume-of-interest breast computed tomography—A Monte Carlo simulation study, Medical Physics 42, 3063 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Acquiring breast mammograms Breast mammogram images were obtained from the Mendeley dataset archive, collected from the National Library of Medicine

    Breast X-ray mammograms 1.1. Acquiring breast mammograms Breast mammogram images were obtained from the Mendeley dataset archive, collected from the National Library of Medicine. [23] This dataset contains images of benign and malignant cancer from different parts of the breast. For our study on breast mammograms, we selected 40 mammograms from benign cas...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Fractal dimension analyses of breast mammograms 2.1. Fractal dimension using the box-counting method To calculate the fractal dimension of X -ray mammograms, first convert the X -ray image to binary images of 0 and 1 and then apply a box -counting algorithm. Details of the box -counting method for calculating fractal dimension are described in our previou...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Breast Cancer Statistics | How Common Is Breast Cancer?, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html

    work page

  5. [4]

    virtual fractal

    Functional transform approach of fractal dimension Df to a new distribution 4.1. Functional transformation of the fractal dimension and Gaussian distribution of the transformed fractal dimension To further enhance diagnostic resolution, we introduced a functional transformation of the fractal dimension in this context , mapping the fractal measure into a ...

    work page 1928

  6. [5]

    This technique provides a single -parameter characterization of structural disorder, and its utility is well established in mesoscopic condensed matter physics

    Spatial structural disorder of X-ray mammogram 5.1 Light Localization Analysis of Breast Tissue Using the Inverse Participation Ratio Technique (IPR) Recently adapted for biomedical imaging, the Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR) technique provides a quantitative measure of virtual light localization in breast tissue based on 2D mammographic micrographs. T...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2024-2025, (n.d.)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    CDC, Breast Cancer Statistics, https://www.cdc.gov/breast-cancer/statistics/index.html

    work page

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Cancer of the Breast (Female) - Cancer Stat Facts, https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

  2. [9]

    R. L. Siegel, T. B. Kratzer, A. N. Giaquinto, H. Sung, and A. Jemal, Cancer statistics, 2025, CA A Cancer J Clinicians 75, 10 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    S. E. Tomlinson-Hansen, M. Khan, and S. Cassaro, Breast Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    J. M. Boone and K. K. and Lindfors, Breast Ct: Potential For Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Future Oncology 2, 351 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    D. R. Jacobson, Mammography radiation dose and image quality, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 80, 295 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    R. S. Lee, F. Gimenez, A. Hoogi, K. K. Miyake, M. Gorovoy, and D. L. Rubin, A curated mammography data set for use in computer-aided detection and diagnosis research, Scientific Data 4, 1 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Elkington, P

    L. Elkington, P. Adhikari, and P. Pradhan, Fractal Dimension Analysis to Detect the Progress of Cancer Using Transmission Optical Microscopy, Biophysica 2, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bhandari, S

    S. Bhandari, S. Choudannavar, E. R. Avery, P. Sahay, and P. Pradhan, Detection of colon cancer stages via fractal dimension analysis of optical transmission imaging of tissue microarrays (TMA), Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express 4, 065020 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Maity, M

    S. Maity, M. Alrubayan, I. Apachigwao, D. Solanki, and P. Pradhan, Optical Probing of Fractal and Multifractal Connection to Structural Disorder in Weakly Optical Disordered Media: Application to Cancer Detection, arXiv:2412.19532

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    H. F. Jelinek, N. T. Milošević, A. Karperien, and B. Krstonošić, Box-Counting and Multifractal Analysis in Neuronal and Glial Classification, in Advances in Intelligent Control Systems and Computer Science, edited by L. Dumitrache, Vol. 187 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,...

    2013

  11. [19]

    N. Das, S. Chatterjee, S. Kumar, A. Pradhan, P. Panigrahi, I. A. Vitkin, and N. Ghosh, Tissue multifractality and Born approximation in analysis of light scattering: a novel approach for precancers detection, Scientific Reports 4, 6129 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    A. J. Joseph and P. N. Pournami, Multifractal theory based breast tissue characterization for early detection of breast cancer, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 152, 111301 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Pradhan, D

    P. Pradhan, D. Damania, H. M. Joshi, V. Turzhitsky, H. Subramanian, H. K. Roy, A. Taflove, V. P. Dravid, and V. Backman, Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations by electron microscopy: probing cellular alterations in early carcinogenesis*, Phys. Biol. 8, 026012 (2011). ~ 16 ~

    2011

  14. [22]

    Pradhan, D

    P. Pradhan, D. Damania, H. M. Joshi, V. Turzhitsky, H. Subramanian, H. K. Roy, A. Taflove, V. P. Dravid, and V. Backman, Quantification of nanoscale density fluctuations using electron microscopy: Light-localization properties of biological cells, Appl Phys Lett 97, 243704 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Sahay, H

    P. Sahay, H. M. Almabadi, H. M. Ghimire, O. Skalli, and P. Pradhan, Light localization properties of weakly disordered optical media using confocal microscopy: application to cancer detection, Opt. Express, OE 25, 15428 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Sahay, A

    P. Sahay, A. Ganju, H. M. Almabadi, H. M. Ghimire, M. M. Yallapu, O. Skalli, M. Jaggi, S. C. Chauhan, and P. Pradhan, Quantification of photonic localization properties of targeted nuclear mass density variations: Application in cancer-stage detection, Journal of Biophotonics ...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Adhikari, P

    P. Adhikari, P. K. Shukla, F. Alharthi, S. Bhandari, A. S. Meena, R. Rao, and P. Pradhan, Photonics probing of pup brain tissue and molecular-specific nuclear nanostructure alterations due to fetal alcoholism via light scattering/localization approaches, JBO 27, 076002 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Adhikari, P

    P. Adhikari, P. K. Shukla, F. Alharthi, R. Rao, and P. Pradhan, Photonic technique to study the effects of probiotics on chronic alcoholic brain cells by quantifying their molecular specific structural alterations via confocal imaging, Journal of Biophotonics 15, e202100247 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Huang and T.-Y

    M.-L. Huang and T.-Y. Lin, Dataset of breast mammography images with masses, Data in Brief 31, 105928 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    D. F. Swinehart, The Beer-Lambert Law, J. Chem. Educ. 39, 333 (1962)

    1962

  21. [29]

    C. R. L. P. N. Jeukens, Physics of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, edited by M. Lobbes and M. S. Jochelson (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), pp. 23–39

    2019

  22. [30]

    The Modified Beer–Lambert Law Revisited - IOPscience, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031- 9155/51/5/N02/meta?casa_token=ufk0mItsuGcAAAAA:3oicu_8oKrgRK6SBdOXxfcUxirA8A 04EpQJf3T44YGQM4nLxSfZujqUTZ-nWEWuCgA9NgM-WBOLAAK_BpHVNGUNI6g

    doi

  23. [31]

    H. F. Jelinek, N. T. Milošević, A. Karperien, and B. Krstonošić, Box-Counting and Multifractal Analysis in Neuronal and Glial Classification, in Advances in Intelligent Control Systems and Computer Science, edited by L. Dumitrache (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 177–189

    2013

  24. [32]

    Apachigawo, D

    I. Apachigawo, D. Solanki, R. Tate, H. Singh, M. M. Khan, and P. Pradhan, Fractal Dimension Analyses to Detect Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases Using Their Thin Brain Tissue Samples via Transmission Optical Microscopy, Biophysica 3, 4 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Chhabra and R

    A. Chhabra and R. V. Jensen, Direct determination of the f(\ensuremath{\alpha}) singularity spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1327 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Stojić, I

    T. Stojić, I. Reljin, and B. Reljin, Adaptation of multifractal analysis to segmentation of microcalcifications in digital mammograms, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 367, 494 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    W. M. C. Foulkes and R. Haydock, Tight-binding models and density-functional theory, Phys. Rev. B 39, 12520 (1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Fröhlich, F

    J. Fröhlich, F. Martinelli, E. Scoppola, and T. Spencer, Constructive proof of localization in the Anderson tight binding model, Commun.Math. Phys. 101, 21 (1985)

    1985

  29. [37]

    Pradhan and S

    P. Pradhan and S. Sridhar, Correlations due to Localization in Quantum Eigenfunctions of Disordered Microwave Cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2360 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Pradhan and S

    P. Pradhan and S. Sridhar, From chaos to disorder: Statistics of the eigenfunctions of microwave cavities, Pramana - J Phys 58, 333 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.