MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571612129 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2016.7822688

Identification of discriminative genes for predicting breast cancer subtypes

2016· article· en· W2571612129 on OpenAlexaff
Roohollah Etemadi, Abedalrhman Alkhateeb, Iman Rezaeian, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelBreast cancerFeature selectionClassifier (UML)Gene selectionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)CancerGeneComputational biologyMachine learningBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is a widespread cancer type in females and accounts for lots of cancer cases and cancer deaths in the world. Identifying the type of breast cancer plays a crucial role in selecting the best treatment. In this paper an optimized hierarchical model is proposed to predict the breast cancer subtype. Suitable filter feature selection methods and new hybrid feature selection methods are utilized in our model to find discriminative genes. The multi-class problem is handled using a proper classifier at each step in the hierarchical model to separate a subtype from the others. The parameters of each classifier are optimized to achieve a better performance. Our proposed model achieves 100% of accuracy for predicting the breast cancer subtypes using the same or even less number of genes.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207