ArticleProceedings of IEEE Southeastcon. IEEE Southeastcon2014
Evaluation of Semi-supervised Learning for Classification of Protein Crystallization Imagery.
Article in Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon. IEEE Southeastcon, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feature analysis for classification of trace fluorescent labeled protein crystallization images.BioData mining · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the performance of two wrapper methods for semi-supervised learning algorithms for classification of protein crystallization images with limited labeled images. Firstly, we evaluate the performance of semi-supervised approach using self-training with naïve Bayesian (NB) and sequential minimum optimization (SMO) as the base classifiers. The confidence values returned by these classifiers are used to select high confident predictions to be used for self-training. Secondly, we analyze the performance of Yet Another Two Stage Idea (YATSI) semi-supervised learning using NB, SMO, multilayer perceptron (MLP), J48 and random forest (RF) classifiers. These results are compared with the basic supervised learning using the same training sets. We perform our experiments on a dataset consisting of 2250 protein crystallization images for different proportions of training and test data. Our results indicate that NB and SMO using both self-training and YATSI semi-supervised approaches improve accuracies with respect to supervised learning. On the other hand, MLP, J48 and RF perform better using basic supervised learning. Overall, random forest classifier yields the best accuracy with supervised learning for our dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.