MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099722147 · doi:10.1109/iccabs.2014.6863912

Breast cancer subtype identification using machine learning techniques

2014· article· en· W2099722147 on OpenAlexaff
Forough Firoozbakht, Iman Rezaeian, Lisa A. Porter, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene selectionBreast cancerMachine learningClassifier (UML)Selection (genetic algorithm)DiseaseIdentification (biology)Artificial intelligenceFeature selectionComputer scienceCancerGeneBioinformaticsMedicineBiologyInternal medicineGene expressionMicroarray analysis techniques

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among women worldwide. Accurate diagnosis of the specific subtypes of this disease is vital to ensure that patients are provided with the most effective therapeutic strategies that yield the greatest response. Using the newly proposed ten subtypes of breast cancer, we hypothesize that machine learning techniques offer many benefits for selecting the most informative biomarkers. Unlike existing gene selection approaches, in this study, a hierarchical classification approach is used that selects genes and builds the classifier concurrently. Our results support that this modified approach to gene selection yields a small subset of genes that can predict these ten subtypes with greater than 95% overall accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207