Logistic Regression Classification for Assessing the Risk of Kidney Tumor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kidneys have the important function of filtering waste products and toxins from the blood in the human body. Any problems affecting the kidneys can potentially impact their efficiency and overall function. Kidney Tumor (KT) is a disease that specifically affects kidney cells and causes the abnormal growth of tissue in one or both kidneys. Assessing the risk of developing a kidney tumor and identifying the key factors that contribute to this risk are crucial for ensuring patient well-being. Additionally, this information assists doctors and specialists in making faster and more accurate diagnoses, determining appropriate treatment methods, and potentially influencing the course of the disease to minimize its severity and impact. Machine learning algorithms have recently been introduced to evaluate disease risks, and in this study, we specifically focus on examining the risk of kidney tumor development and investigating the influencing factors. We employed a logistic regression model to predict if a patient is at risk of developing a kidney tumor or not, and further categorized the samples into high-risk and low-risk groups. Our model was trained and tested using a unique dataset obtained from the (KAUH) hospital in Jordan, consisting of well-balanced metadata from 120 patients with kidney issues. Our work demonstrated accuracy results ranging from 90% to 98%. Ultimately, specialists can utilize our model as an additional tool to enhance the speed and accuracy of patient diagnoses
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it