A summary of the prevalence of Genetic Algorithms in Bioinformatics from 2015 onwards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, machine learning has seen an increasing presencein a large variety of fields, especially in health care and bioinformatics.More specifically, the field where machine learning algorithms have found most applications is Genetic Algorithms.The objective of this paper is to conduct a survey of articles published from 2015 onwards that deal with Genetic Algorithms(GA) and how they are used in bioinformatics.To achieve the objective, a scoping review was conducted that utilized Google Scholar alongside Publish or Perish and the Scimago Journal & CountryRank to search for respectable sources. Upon analyzing 31 articles from the field of bioinformatics, it became apparent that genetic algorithms rarely form a full application, instead they rely on other vital algorithms such as support vector machines.Indeed, support vector machines were the most prevalent algorithms used alongside genetic algorithms; however, while the usage of such algorithms contributes to the heavy focus on accuracy by GA programs, it often sidelines computation times in the process. In fact, most applications employing GAs for classification and feature selectionare nearing or at 100% success rate, and the focus of future GA development should be directed elsewhere. Population-based searches, like GA, are often combined with other machine learning algorithms. In this scoping review, genetic algorithms combined with Support Vector Machines were found to perform best. The performance metric that was evaluated most often was accuracy. Measuring the accuracy avoids measuring the main weakness of GAs, which is computational time. The future of genetic algorithms could be open-ended evolutionary algorithms, which attempt to increase complexity and find diverse solutions, rather than optimize a fitness function and converge to a single best solution from the initial population of solutions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".