MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388463913 · doi:10.18280/ria.370530

Improving Cancer Classification Using Deep Reinforcement Learning with Convolutional LSTM Networks

2023· article· en· W4388463913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Thillai Ganesh, Muthumani Nachimuthu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkDeep learningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene Expression Microarray (GEM) data is biological data that contains valuable hidden information genes.The gene information extracted from variations of gene expression levels is utilized for disease detection and diagnosis, especially in cancer classification.Since GEM data contains a relatively large sample size with highly redundant and imbalanced data, the accuracy of the cancer classification result is lower.It is difficult to identify suitable features from large GEM datasets.Hence, in this paper, this model utilizes Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) Model to select the features from the GEM data.Convolutional Neural Network with Long Short Time Memory (ConvLSTM) is developed by utilizing Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) to select the appropriate features and parameters for efficient cancer classification.The ConvLSTM model is used to convert low-level features into high-level ones by identifying distributed data representations.DRL optimizes ConvLSTM parameters iteratively which significantly impacts the overall learning process of this prediction model.In DRL, The Double Deep Q-Network (DDQN) model is introduced to minimize training-time overestimations of action values.Finally, the loss function is employed in the Neural Network (NN) of ConvLSTM for accurate cancer detection and diagnosis of cancer.The proposed model is termed Improved ConvLSTM using DDQN (ICL-DDQN).The ICL-DDQN-DDQN achieves accuracy of 92%, 91.67% and 92.22% for breast cancer, leukemia and lung cancer datasets which is 32.69%,57.16%,23.89% higher than 1D-CNN; 21.06%, 43.18%, 16.89% higher than DL-DCGN; 15%, 28.33%, 10.18% higher than DL-SAE and 6.15%, 132.79%, 4.83% higher than DL-AAA on respective datasets.The proposed model effectively detects cancer at its earlier stage, reducing manual inspection and time for doctors and physicians, resulting in more effective treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207