Disease Detection Analytics: A Simple Linear Convex Programming Algorithm for Breast Cancer and Diabetes Incidence Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the last couple of decades, data analytics‐based pattern classification methods for disease detection have gained much traction in healthcare research and applications. The current study builds linear programming (LP) models for detecting disease incidence. We propose sequential steps of a convex programming algorithm to construct decision boundary functions to classify patterns in disease detection data. We compare the performance of our LP‐based classifier with others (neural network, decision tree, k‐nearest‐neighbor, logistic regression, naïve‐Bayes, and support‐vector‐machine) on four datasets: two different ones for breast cancer, and one each for diabetes and diabetic retinopathy. Statistical tests reveal that the LP classifier did significantly better than the other methods in five out of eight false‐positive and false‐negative test cases. There is not a statistically significant difference in performance in the remaining three tests between the LP classifier and the best alternative method. Most importantly, the LP classifier has significantly superior performance in both diabetes detection and diabetic retinopathy data. The success of the proposed LP classifier results from avoiding “modeling noise” and “memorization of training data.” We recommend that our proposed LP classifier be among the set of classifiers for use in disease detection analytics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".