ArticleCancer informatics2023
Decision Support System and Web-Application Using Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Easy Cancer Classifications.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using a decision support system (DSS) that classifies various cancers provides support to the clinicians/researchers to make better decisions that can aid in early cancer diagnosis, thereby reducing chances of incorrect disease diagnosis. Thus, this work aimed at designing a classification model that can predict accurately for 5 different cancer types comprising of 20 cancer exomes, using the mutations identified from whole exome cancer analysis. Initially, a basic model was designed using supervised machine learning classification algorithms such as K-nearest neighbor (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree, naïve bayes and random forest (RF), among which decision tree and random forest performed better in terms of preliminary model accuracy. However, output predictions were incorrect due to less training scores. Thus, 16 essential features were then selected for model improvement using 2 approaches. All imbalanced datasets were balanced using SMOTE. In the first approach, all features from 20 cancer exome datasets were trained and models were designed using decision tree and random forest. Balanced datasets for decision tree model showed an accuracy of 77%, while with the RF model, the accuracy improved to 82% where all 5 cancer types were predicted correctly. Area under the curve for RF model was closer to 1, than decision tree model. In the second approach, all 15 datasets were trained, while 5 were tested. However, only 2 cancer types were predicted correctly. To cross validate RF model, Matthew's correlation co-efficient (MCC) test was performed. For method 1, the MCC test and MCC cross validation was found to be 0.7796 and 0.9356 respectively. Likewise, for second approach, MCC was observed to be 0.9365, corroborating the accuracy of the designed model. The model was successfully deployed using Streamlit as a web application for easy use. This study presents insights for allowing easy cancer classifications.
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.