ArticleQuantitative biology (Beijing, China)2020
Performance-weighted-voting model: An ensemble machine learning method for cancer type classification using whole-exome sequencing mutation.
Article in Quantitative biology (Beijing, China), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing protein immunogenicity prediction via uncertainty weighted deep ensemble.Oxford open immunology · 2026Article
- Reconceptualizing Scoring Reliability Through Linguistic Similarity.Educational and psychological measurement · 2025Article
- GeneAI 3.0: powerful, novel, generalized hybrid and ensemble deep learning frameworks for miRNA species classification of stationary patterns from nucleotides.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Informing immunotherapy with multi-omics driven machine learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- PlasmidEC and gplas2: an optimized short-read approach to predict and reconstruct antibiotic resistance plasmids inMicrobial genomics · 2024Article
- Discovery of potential biomarkers for lung cancer classification based on human proteome microarrays using Stochastic Gradient Boosting approach.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- BDL-SP: A Bio-inspired DL model for the identification of altered Signaling Pathways in Multiple Myeloma using WES data.American journal of cancer research · 2023Article
- Implementation of ensemble machine learning algorithms on exome datasets for predicting early diagnosis of cancers.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Machine Learning for Lung Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2022Review
- OperonSEQer: A set of machine-learning algorithms with threshold voting for detection of operon pairs using short-read RNA-sequencing data.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Cancer Classification with a Cost-Sensitive Naive Bayes Stacking Ensemble.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- Exploring Social and Structural Determinants of Substance Use Among Sexual and Gender Minority Adults in the United States.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith improvements in next-generation DNA sequencing technology, lower cost is needed to collect genetic data. More machine learning techniques can be used to help with cancer analysis and diagnosis.
methodsWe developed an ensemble machine learning system named performance-weighted-voting model for cancer type classification in 6,249 samples across 14 cancer types. Our ensemble system consists of five weak classifiers (logistic regression, SVM, random forest, XGBoost and neural networks). We first used cross-validation to get the predicted results for the five classifiers. The weights of the five weak classifiers can be obtained based on their predictive performance by solving linear regression functions. The final predicted probability of the performance-weighted-voting model for a cancer type can be determined by the summation of each classifier's weight multiplied by its predicted probability.
resultsUsing the somatic mutation count of each gene as the input feature, the overall accuracy of the performance-weighted-voting model reached 71.46%, which was significantly higher than the five weak classifiers and two other ensemble models: the hard-voting model and the soft-voting model. In addition, by analyzing the predictive pattern of the performance-weighted-voting model, we found that in most cancer types, higher tumor mutational burden can improve overall accuracy.
conclusionThis study has important clinical significance for identifying the origin of cancer, especially for those where the primary cannot be determined. In addition, our model presents a good strategy for using ensemble systems for cancer type classification.
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.