Lung cancer classification based on support vector machine-recursive feature elimination and artificial bee colony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early detection of cancerous cells can increase survival rates for patients by more than 97%. Microarray data, used for cancer classification, are comp osed of many thousands of features and from tens to hundreds of instances. Handling these huge datasets is the most imp ortant challenge in data classification. Feature selection or reduction is therefore an essential task in data classification. We prop ose a cancer diagnostic to ol using a supp ort vector machine for classifier and feature selection. First, we use supp ort vector machine-recursive feature elimination to prefilter the genes. This was enhanced with the artificial b ee colony algorithm. We ran four simulations using Ontario and Michigan lung cancer datasets. This approach provides higher classification accuracy than those without feature selection, supp ort vector machine-recursive feature elimination, or the artificial b ee colony algorithm. The accuracy of a supp ort vector machine using a feature selection-based recursive feature elimination metho d combined with the artificial b ee colony algorithm reached 98% with 100 b est features for the Michigan lung cancer dataset and 97% with 70 b est features for the Ontario lung cancer dataset. SVM with RFE-ABC as the feature selection metho d gives us an accurate result to diagnose Lung cancer using microarray data.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".