Machine Learning Model for Identifying Gene Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Treatment Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the breast cancer survival genes information will help to enhance the treatment and save more patents life by identifying the genes biomarker to recommend the proper treatment type. That is why it is now a great challenge for researchers to have more research on breast cancer specially with the great enhancement in the fields of bioinformatics, data mining, and machine learning techniques which were a new revolution in the cancer treatment. A dataset contains the survival information and treatments methods for 1980 female breast cancer patient is used for building the prediction model, the gene expression are the features of the learning model [1], where the combination of the survival and treatments information are the classes. A hierarchal model that consists of hybrid feature selection and classification method are utilized to differentiate a class from the rest of the classes. The results show that a few number of gene biomarkers (gene signature) at each node which can determine the class with accuracy around 99% for survival living / deceased based on treatments which is vital to ensure that the patients will have the best potential response to a specific therapy. This signatures will be used as a predictor of survival in breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".