Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38603682›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

An improved breast cancer classification with hybrid chaotic sand cat and Remora Optimization feature selection algorithm.

Afnan M Alhassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Afnan M AlhassanCollege of Computing and Information Technology, Shaqra University, Shaqra, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-0414-5835

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is one of the most often diagnosed cancers in women, and identifying breast cancer histological images is an essential challenge in automated pathology analysis. According to research, the global BrC is around 12% of all cancer cases. Furthermore, around 25% of women suffer from BrC. Consequently, the prediction of BrC depends critically on the quick and precise processing of imaging data. The primary reason deep learning models are used in breast cancer detection is that they can produce findings more quickly and accurately than current machine learning-based techniques. Using a BreakHis dataset, we demonstrated in this work the viability of automatically identifying and classifying BrC. The first stage is pre-processing, which employs an Adaptive Switching Modified Decision Based Unsymmetrical Trimmed Median Filter (ASMDBUTMF) to remove high-density noise. After the image has been pre-processed, it is segmented using the Thresholding Level set approach. Next, we propose a hybrid chaotic sand cat optimization technique, together with the Remora Optimization Algorithm (ROA) for feature selection. The suggested strategy facilitates the acquisition of precise functionality attributes, hence simplifying the detection procedure. Additionally, it aids in resolving problems pertaining to global optimization. Following the selection, the best characteristics proceed to the categorization procedure. A DL classifier called the Conditional Variation Autoencoder is used to discriminate between cancerous and benign tumors while categorizing them. Consequently, a classification accuracy of 99.4%, Precision of 99.2%, Recall of 99.1%, F- score of 99%, Specificity of 99.14%, FDR of 0.54, FNR of 0.001, FPR of 0.002, MCC of 0.98 and NPV of 0.99 were obtained using the proposed approach. Furthermore, compared to other research using the current BreakHis dataset, the results of our research are more desirable.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAlgorithmsBreastFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID38603682
PMCPMC11008855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.