MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970657189 · doi:10.1145/2345396.2345554

Neuro-fuzzy expert system for breast cancer diagnosis

2012· article· en· W1970657189 on OpenAlexaff
Manisha Arora, Dinesh Tagra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineMachine learningNeuro-fuzzyProbabilistic neural networkFuzzy logicHybrid systemMultilayer perceptronBreast cancerMATLABData miningFuzzy control systemPattern recognition (psychology)Time delay neural networkCancerMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malignant Neoplasm commonly referred as cancer is caused by uncontrolled growth of cells in the body. According to the American Cancer Society nearly 7.6 million people died from cancer during 2007. The true inspiration for this paper comes from the paper "Implementing automated diagnostic systems for breast cancer detection" by E. D. Ubeyli, achieved appealing results by using different kinds of Neural Network algorithms such as Combine Neural Network(CNN) Recurrence Neural Network(RNN), Probabilistic Neural Network(PNN), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) and Support Vector Machine (SVM)). We used a hybrid approach for the same diagnosis. The hybrid system that we used was Neuro-Fuzzy (ANFIS-MATLAB) which is a combination of Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic. As an extension of this research and curiosity to evaluate the hybrid approach we implemented a Fuzzy Inference System(FIS) in MATLAB using fuzzy toolbox. The hybrid system trained on equally distributed dataset outperforms all other approaches discussed in literature. Specifically the sensitivity obtained in our Neuro-Fuzzy system is 100% which outperforms sensitivity of 99.37% in the SVM (Support Vector Machine) model used by E. D. Ubeyli [5].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207