Exploring medical data using visual spaces with genetic programming and implicit functional mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two medical data sets (Breast cancer and Colon cancer) are investigated within a visual data mining paradigm through the unsupervised construction of virtual reality spaces using genetic programming and classical optimization (for comparison purposes). The desired visual spaces are such that a modified genetic programming approach was proposed in order to generate programs representing vector functions. The extension leads to populations that are composed of forests, instead of single expression trees. No particular kind of genetic programming algorithm is required due to the generic nature of the approach taken in the paper. The results (visual spaces) show that the relationships between the data objects and their classes can be appreciated in all of the obtained spaces regardless of the mapping error. In addition, the spaces obtained with genetic programming resulted in lower mapping errors than a classical optimizer and produced relatively simple equations. Further, the set of obtained equations can be statistically analyzed in terms of the original attributes in order to further the understanding of the derivation of the new nonlinear features that are constructed. Thus, explicit mappings provided by genetic programming can be used for feature selection and generation in data mining where scalar and/or vector functions are involved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".