MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411031055 · doi:10.1145/3715020.3715058

Redefined Classification of Hepatitis Variants through Arima, Signal Processing and Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4411031055 on OpenAlexaff
Vatsalkumar Vipulkumar Shah, Love Fadia, Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Majid Ahmadi, Q. M. Jonathan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFractal and DNA sequence analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningSIGNAL (programming language)Speech recognitionTime seriesDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a novel feature selection method using the Auto Regressive Moving Average model to classify four hepatitis virus types: Hepatitis B, C, D, and E. Firstly, DNA sequences are transformed from characters into numerical representations using Electron-Ion Interaction Potential coding.Then discrete sine transform is applied to extract features from the sequences.Our proposed feature selection technique, using the inverse integrated moving average (ARIMA) as a statistical filter, refines the features for optimal classification.We train two machine learning models Light Gradient Boosting Machine and Random Forest on the selected features.We compare the results of our approach with another 5 window-based finite impulse response filters (FIR) as they extract significant features by reducing noise and emphasizing key patterns.Our findings indicate that ARIMA, with an order of (1,1,5), achieves 98% accuracy, while the Bartlett window-based filter yields 93.25% accuracy.This approach highlights the potential of ARIMA for effective feature selection in the classification of hepatitis viruses using machine learning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFractal and DNA sequence analysisFrench-language works237,207