MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296636346 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2015.196

Probabilistic Graphical Models and Deep Belief Networks for Prognosis of Breast Cancer

2015· article· en· W2296636346 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Khademi, Nedialko S. Nedialkov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphical modelComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSoftmax functionProbabilistic logicDeep belief networkSupport vector machineData miningDeep learningMicroarray analysis techniques

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a probabilistic graphical model (PGM) for prognosis and diagnosis of breast cancer. PGMs are suitable for building predictive models in medical applications, as they are powerful tools for making decisions under uncertainty from big data with missing attributes and noisy evidence. Previous work relied mostly on clinical data to create a predictive model. Moreover, practical knowledge of an expert was needed to build the structure of a model, which may not be accurate. In our opinion, since cancer is basically a genetic disease, the integration of microarray and clinical data can improve the accuracy of a predictive model. However, since microarray data is high-dimensional, including genomic variables may lead to poor results for structure and parameter learning due to the curse of dimensionality and small sample size problems. We address these problems by applying manifold learning and a deep belief network (DBN) to microarray data. First, we construct a PGM and a DBN using clinical and microarray data, and extract the structure of the clinical model automatically by applying a structure learning algorithm to the clinical data. Then, we integrate these two models using softmax nodes. Extensive experiments using real-world databases, such as METABRIC and NKI, show promising results in comparison to Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN) classifiers, for classifying tumors and predicting events like recurrence and metastasis.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations64
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207