MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring Gene Expression and Clinical Data for Identifying Prostate Cancer Severity Levels using Machine Learning Methods

2023· article· en· W4387951364 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Al Marouf, Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne, Sunita Ghose, Tarek A. Bismar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsProstate Cancer CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerNaive Bayes classifierRandom forestArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineLogistic regressionMachine learningDecision treeProstate biopsyComputer scienceProstateMedicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common type of cancer in men worldwide. It is a cancer that starts in the small walnut-shaped male gland called the prostate. From the prostate, it can form a metastasis into other organs. If detected and diagnosed early the survival rate may increase to 95%. Therefore, early detection and diagnosis are important tasks performed by a pathologist. The pathologist identifies the severity levels using a scale called the Gleason grading group (GGG). The GGG is found by pathologists by looking at a biopsy sample and assigning a grade of low, intermediate, or high to the sample. The pathologist then assesses a second sample in the same manner. The GGG is found by adding these two scores provides the total Gleason score. In this paper, we have explored tissue microarray (TMA) and clinical data collected by pathologists of Alberta Precision Laboratory, for predicting the severity level of prostate cancer using various machine learning methods. Traditional classifiers, such as Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine with Radial basis function (RBF), Logistic Regression, and ensemble classifiers, such as Random Forest, and Bagging with k-nearest neighbors have been applied through the machine learning pipeline containing imputation and sampling techniques. An integrated SMOTE-Tomek Links method is adopted for handling the class imbalance problem. The highest accuracy obtained is 99.64% from the Random Forest method.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.678
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207