Importance of Feature Selection and Data Visualization Towards Prediction of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of cancers among women and the leading cause of death among them. Countries like United States, England and Canada have reported a high number of breast cancer patients every year and this number is continuously increasing due to detection at later stages. Hence, it is very important to create awareness among women and develop such algorithms which help to detect malignant cancer. Several research studies have been conducted to analyze the breast cancer data. Objective: This paper presents an effective method in predicting breast cancer and its stage and will also analyze the performance of different supervised learning algorithms such as Random Classifier, Chi2 Square test used in order to predict. The paper focuses on the three important aspects such as the feature selection, the corresponding data visualisation and finally making a prediction call on different machine learning models. Methods: The dataset used for this work is breast cancer Wisconsin data taken from UCI library. The dataset has been used to show the different 32 features which are all important and how it can be achieved using data visualisation. Secondly, after the feature selection, different machine learning models have been applied. Conclusion: The machine learning models involved are namely Support Vector Machine (SVM), KNearest Neighbour (KNN), Random Forest, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Neural Network using Perceptron (NNP). This has been done to check which type of model is better under what conditions. At different stages several charts have been plotted and eliminated based on relative comparison. Results have shown that Random Tree classifier along with Chi2 Square proves to be an efficient one.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".