MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245682817 · doi:10.1109/isspit.2018.8642735

A Comparative Analysis of Unsupervised Machine Techniques for Liver Disease Prediction

2018· article· en· W4245682817 on OpenAlexaff
Varun Vats, Lining Zhang, Sreejit Chatterjee, Sabbir Ahmed, Elvin Enziama, Kemal Tepe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningUnsupervised learningField (mathematics)SilhouetteComputational complexity theoryComputational intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Data setData miningPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is a branch of Artificial Intelligence(AI) which is heavily used in the field of data science. It has a strong potential in health-related data analysis for automated disease prediction. The work focuses on three different machine learning techniques, i.e., DBSCAN, K-Means, and Affinity Propagation to compare their prediction accuracy and computational complexity. The study concentrates on liver disease-related health care data set and uses the Silhouette coefficient for comparative performance measurement of the three techniques mentioned above. The Silhouette coefficient determines prediction accuracy giving K-Means as the optimal method. The overall results will then be analyzed on the basis of prediction accuracy and computational complexity to determine the best technique for prediction of liver diseases using unsupervised machine learning.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207