Accurate Detection of Breast Cancer Metastasis Using a Hybrid Model of Artificial Intelligence Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer (BC) is a prevalent disease and a major cause of mortality among women worldwide. A substantial number of BC patients experience metastasis which in turn leads to treatment failure and death. The survival rate has been significantly increased due to more rapid detection and substantial improvements in adjuvant therapies including newer chemotherapeutic and targeted agents, and better radiotherapy techniques.Methods: In this study, we cross-compared the application of advanced artificial intelligence algorithms such as Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Discrete Cosine Transform, Random Forest Classifier, Support Vector Machines, Multilayer Perceptron, and Ensemble to diagnose BC metastasis. We further combined MLP with genetic algorithm (GA) as a hybrid method of intelligent analysis. The core data we used for comparison belonged to the images of both benign and malignant tumors collected from Wisconsin Breast Cancer dataset from the UCI repository.Results: The application of several different algorithms to the collection of BC data indicated that these algorithms have comparable accuracy rate in detecting and predicting cancer. However, our hybrid algorithm showed superior accuracy, sensitivity and specificity compared to the individual algorithms. Two methods of comparison (Cross-Validation and Holdout) were applied to this study which produced consistent results.Conclusion: Our findings indicate that our MLP-GA hybrid algorithm can speed up diagnosis with higher accuracy rate than the individual patterns of algorithm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".