Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithm Utilization for Lung Cancer Classification Based on Gene Expression Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains one of the most common cancers in the world, both in terms of new cases (about 13% of total per year) and deaths (nearly one cancer death in five), because of the high case fatality. Errors in lung cancer type or malignant growth determination lead to degraded treatment efficacy, because anticancer strategy depends on tumor morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have made an attempt to evaluate effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in the task of lung cancer classification based on gene expression levels. We processed four publicly available data sets. The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute data set contains 203 samples and the task was to classify four cancer types and sound tissue samples. With the University of Michigan data set of 96 samples, the task was to execute a binary classification of adenocarcinoma and non-neoplastic tissues. The University of Toronto data set contains 39 samples and the task was to detect recurrence, while with the Brigham and Women's Hospital data set of 181 samples it was to make a binary classification of malignant pleural mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. We used the k-nearest neighbor algorithm (k=1, k=5, k=10), naive Bayes classifier with assumption of both a normal distribution of attributes and a distribution through histograms, support vector machine and C4.5 decision tree. Effectiveness of machine learning algorithms was evaluated with the Matthews correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The support vector machine method showed best results among data sets from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital. All algorithms with the exception of the C4.5 decision tree showed maximum potential effectiveness in the University of Michigan data set. However, the C4.5 decision tree showed best results for the University of Toronto data set. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning algorithms can be used for lung cancer morphology classification and similar tasks based on gene expression level evaluation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".