Genetic Algorithm-Based Feature Selection for Accurate Breast Cancer Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is a significant global healthcare challenge, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries, with profound physical, emotional, and psychological consequences, including mortality. Timely diagnosis and accurate treatment are crucial in addressing this issue. We propose the utilization of a feature selection technique to identify the most relevant features from among all features for breast cancer diagnosis, and show that Genetic Algorithms are impressive for this task. The study compares the results of GA with no selection and an alternative method, Principle Component Analysis (PCA). Three machine learning models, all based on supervised learning with data split into training and test data, are employed for binary classification using the selected feature subset. The evaluation metrics employed encompass accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Among the selected models, Random Forest demonstrates the most favorable outcomes, achieving an accuracy score of 0.96, precision score of 0.96, recall value of 0.98, and an F1-score of 0.97. These results underscore the effectiveness of GA in feature selection for breast cancer diagnosis. Consequently, the integration of Genetic Algorithms (GA) with Random Forest showcases the superior performance among the evaluated models.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".