MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402956412 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110910

Investigation of Machine Learning on Gene Expression Data for Cancer Detection

2024· article· en· W4402956412 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Abdul Razzaq

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene expressionComputational biologyGeneComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer remains a leading cause of global mortality due to delayed diagnoses and inadequate treatments from uncontrolled cell growth.Leveraging machine learning techniques can aid in early cancer prediction given available data.This study aims to improve tumor classification accuracy and efficiency based on gene expression patterns using deep learning algorithms.The primary approach involves constructing a feedforward network (FFN) for binary classification, distinguishing between cancerous and healthy samples using the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database.Breast cancer, with ample samples in TCGA, and kidney cancer, with high mortality rates, were chosen for this study.Three feature extraction methods-Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Random Forests-were employed for preprocessing.The FFN achieved the highest accuracy for the kidney dataset using PCA with 300 principal components, yielding optimal accuracy and low error rates.For the breast dataset, PCA also produced favorable results, though requiring more principal components to retain sufficient variance.Comparative analysis showed PCA excelled in preserving variance and optimizing accuracy, with ANOVA also performing well, especially in the breast dataset, whereas Random Forests were less effective overall.These results highlight the importance of tailoring feature extraction methods and model architectures to specific dataset characteristics for the most accurate and efficient predictive models.This study demonstrates the potential of optimizing these parameters to enhance tumor classification model accuracy and reliability, providing valuable insights for improving diagnostic and treatment approaches in breast and kidney cancers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207