Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms for Proteomic Analysis Using TOPSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study focuses on a new application of the TOPSIS method for the optimization of machine learning algorithms, supervised neural networks (SNN), the quick classifier (QC), and genetic algorithm (GA) for proteomic analysis. The main hypotheses are that the change in the weights of alternatives could affect the ranking of algorithms. The obtained data confirmed this hypothesis for their ranking. Moreover, adding labor as a cost criterion to the list of criteria did not affect this ranking. This was because candidate 3 had better fuzzy membership degrees than the two other candidates concerning their criteria. This work showed the importance of the value of the fuzzy membership degrees of the cost criterion of the algorithms in their ranks. The values of the fuzzy membership degrees of the algorithms used for proteomic analysis could determine their priority according to their score differences. One of the advantages of this study was that the studied methods could be compared according to their characteristics. Another advantage was that the obtained results could be related to the new ones after improving these methods. The results of this work could be applied in engineering, where the analysis of proteins would be performed with these methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".