ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Enhancing software defect prediction: a framework with improved feature selection and ensemble machine learning.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- EDISP: a hybrid CNN-ViT framework for robust maize leaf disease detection and classification.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Feature selection using a multi-strategy improved parrot optimization algorithm in software defect prediction.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
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
Effective software defect prediction is a crucial aspect of software quality assurance, enabling the identification of defective modules before the testing phase. This study aims to propose a comprehensive five-stage framework for software defect prediction, addressing the current challenges in the field. The first stage involves selecting a cleaned version of NASA's defect datasets, including CM1, JM1, MC2, MW1, PC1, PC3, and PC4, ensuring the data's integrity. In the second stage, a feature selection technique based on the genetic algorithm is applied to identify the optimal subset of features. In the third stage, three heterogeneous binary classifiers, namely random forest, support vector machine, and naïve Bayes, are implemented as base classifiers. Through iterative tuning, the classifiers are optimized to achieve the highest level of accuracy individually. In the fourth stage, an ensemble machine-learning technique known as voting is applied as a master classifier, leveraging the collective decision-making power of the base classifiers. The final stage evaluates the performance of the proposed framework using five widely recognized performance evaluation measures: precision, recall, accuracy, F-measure, and area under the curve. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art ensemble and base classifiers employed in software defect prediction and achieves a maximum accuracy of 95.1%, showing its effectiveness in accurately identifying software defects. The framework also evaluates its efficiency by calculating execution times. Notably, it exhibits enhanced efficiency, significantly reducing the execution times during the training and testing phases by an average of 51.52% and 52.31%, respectively. This reduction contributes to a more computationally economical solution for accurate software defect prediction.
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.