MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212159861 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2015.7359911

A new compact set of biomarkers for distinguishing among ten breast cancer subtypes

2015· article· en· W2212159861 on OpenAlexafffund
Forough Firoozbakht, Iman Rezaeian, Alioune Ngom, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsBreast cancerGene selectionClassifier (UML)Selection (genetic algorithm)DiseaseMachine learningComputer scienceCancerArtificial intelligenceMedicineGeneBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

World-wide, one in nine women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women. Accurate diagnosis of the specific subtypes of this disease is vital to ensure that the patients will have the best possible response to therapy. Using the newly proposed ten subtypes of breast cancer we hypothesized that machine learning techniques would offer many benefits for selecting the most informative biomarkers. Unlike existing gene selection approaches, we use a hierarchical classification approach that selects genes and builds the classifier concurrently. Our results support that this modified approach to gene selection yields a small subset of 82 genes that can predict each of these ten subtypes with accuracies ranging from 92% to 99%.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207