A combined data mining approach using rough set theory and case-based reasoning in medical datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case-based reasoning (CBR) is the process of solving new cases by retrieving the most relevant ones from an existing knowledge-base. Since, irrelevant or redundant features not only remarkably increase memory requirements but also the time complexity of the case retrieval, reducing the number of dimensions is an issue worth considering. This paper uses rough set theory (RST) in order to reduce the number of dimensions in a CBR classifier with the aim of increasing accuracy and efficiency. CBR exploits a distance based co-occurrence of categorical data to measure similarity of cases. This distance is based on the proportional distribution of different categorical values of features. The weight used for a feature is the average of cooccurrence values of the features. The combination of RST and CBR has been applied to real categorical datasets of Wisconsin Breast Cancer, Lymphography, and Primary cancer. The 5fold cross validation method is used to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach. The results show that this combined approach lowers computational costs and improves performance metrics including accuracy and interpretability compared to other approaches developed in the literature.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".