MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466903581 · doi:10.1109/embsisc.2016.7508607

Cost-sensitive classification on class-balanced ensembles for imbalanced non-coding RNA data

2016· article· en· W2466903581 on OpenAlexaff
Bashier Elkarami, Abedalrhman Alkhateeb, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Support vector machineComputer scienceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Coding (social sciences)Random subspace methodOne-class classificationClass (philosophy)Feature selectionData miningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many bioinformatics data sets have class-imbalanced data, where the number of samples in each class is not equal. Since most of data sets contain usual versus unusual cases, e.g. cancer versus normal or miRNAs versus other non-coding RNA, where the minority class with the least number of samples is the interesting class that contains the unusual cases. The learning models based on the standard classifiers, such as the support vector machine (SVM), random forest and k-NN are usually biased towards the majority class, which means that the classifier is most likely to predict the samples from the interesting class inaccurately. Thus, handling class-imbalanced data set has gained the researchers interests recently. A combination of proper feature selection, a cost-sensitive classifier and ensembling based on random forest method (BCE-CSC-RF) is proposed to handle the class-imbalanced data. Random class-balanced ensembles are built individually. Then, each ensemble is used as a training pool to classify the rest of out-bagged samples. Samples in each ensemble will be classified using class-sensitive classifier that incorporates random forest. The sample will be classified by selecting the most often class has been voted-for in all samples appearances in all the formed ensembles. A set of performance measurements including a geometric measurement suggests that the model can improve the classification of the minority class samples.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207