MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Pre-Processing of Infrared Spectral Breathprints for Lung Cancer Detection

2021· article· en· W4200414088 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn Larracy, Angkoon Phinyomark, Erik Scheme

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineMissing dataComputer scienceBreath gas analysisLung cancerMachine learningPathologyChemistryMedicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though breath analysis shows promise as a noninvasive and cost-effective approach to lung cancer screening, biomarkers in exhaled breath samples can be overwhelmed by irrelevant internal and environmental volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These extraneous VOCs can obscure the disease signature in a spectral breathprint, hindering the performance of pattern recognition models. In this work, pre-processing pipelines consisting of missing value replacement, detrending, and normalization techniques were evaluated to reduce these effects and enhance the features of interest in infrared cavity ring-down spectra. The best performing pipeline consisted of moving average detrending, linear interpolation for missing values, and vector normalization. This model achieved an average accuracy of 73.04% across five types of classifiers, exhibiting an 8.36% improvement compared to a baseline model (p < 0.05). A linear support vector machine classifier yielded the best performance (79.75% accuracy, 67.74% sensitivity, 87.50% specificity). This work can serve to guide pre-processing in future lung cancer breath research and, more broadly, in infrared laser absorption spectroscopy in general.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine &amp; Biology Society (EMBC)Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207