ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023
A voting-based machine learning approach for classifying biological and clinical datasets.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging advancements and expanding technological scope of education and practices in pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences.BioImpacts : BI · 2026Review
- Interpretable deep residual network uncovers nucleosome positioning and associated features.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Enhancing Breast Cancer Detection and Classification Using Advanced Multi-Model Features and Ensemble Machine Learning Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent machine learning techniques have been proposed to classify a wide range of biological/clinical data. Given the practicability of these approaches accordingly, various software packages have been also designed and developed. However, the existing methods suffer from several limitations such as overfitting on a specific dataset, ignoring the feature selection concept in the preprocessing step, and losing their performance on large-size datasets. To tackle the mentioned restrictions, in this study, we introduced a machine learning framework consisting of two main steps. First, our previously suggested optimization algorithm (Trader) was extended to select a near-optimal subset of features/genes. Second, a voting-based framework was proposed to classify the biological/clinical data with high accuracy. To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed method, it was applied to 13 biological/clinical datasets, and the outcomes were comprehensively compared with the prior methods.
resultsThe results demonstrated that the Trader algorithm could select a near-optimal subset of features with a significant level of p-value < 0.01 relative to the compared algorithms. Additionally, on the large-sie datasets, the proposed machine learning framework improved prior studies by ~ 10% in terms of the mean values associated with fivefold cross-validation of accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and F-measure.
conclusionBased on the obtained results, it can be concluded that a proper configuration of efficient algorithms and methods can increase the prediction power of machine learning approaches and help researchers in designing practical diagnosis health care systems and offering effective treatment plans.
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.