The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Hybrid Feature Selection With Ensemble Classification for Imbalanced Healthcare Data: A Case Study for Brain Tumor Diagnosis
Open accessAbstract
Electronic health records (EHRs) are providing increased access to healthcare data that can be made available for advanced data analysis. This can be used by the healthcare professionals to make a more informed decision providing improved quality of care. However, due to the inherent heterogeneous and imbalanced characteristics of medical data from EHRs, data analysis task faces a big challenge. In this paper, we address the challenges of imbalanced medical data about a brain tumor diagnosis problem. Morphometric analysis of histopathological images is rapidly emerging as a valuable diagnostic tool for neuropathology. Oligodendroglioma is one type of brain tumor that has a good response to treatment provided the tumor subtype is recognized accurately. The genetic variant, 1p-/19q-, has recently been found to have high chemosensitivity, and has morphological attributes that may lend it to automated image analysis and histological processing and diagnosis. This paper aims to achieve a fast, affordable, and objective diagnosis of this genetic variant of oligodendroglioma with a novel data mining approach combining a feature selection and ensemble-based classification. In this paper, 63 instances of brain tumor with oligodendroglioma are obtained due to prevalence and incidence of the tumor variant. In order to minimize the effect of an imbalanced healthcare data set, a global optimization-based hybrid wrapper-filter feature selection with ensemble classification is applied. The experiment results show that the proposed approach outperforms the standard techniques used in brain tumor classification problem to overcome the imbalanced characteristics of medical data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Cited by
Ensembles for feature selection: A review and future trends
Bolón-Canedo, V., & Alonso-Betanzos, A. (2019) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2018.11.008 · Cited by 541
Brain tumor detection and classification using machine learning: a comprehensive survey
Amin, J., Sharif, M., Haldorai, A., Yasmin, M., & Nayak, R. S. (2022) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-021-00563-y · Cited by 503
Brain Tumor Classification Using Convolutional Neural Networks
Seetha, J., & Raja, S. S. (2018) · Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal · doi:10.13005/bpj/1511 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Huda, S., Yearwood, J., Jelinek, H. F., Hassan, M. M., Fortino, G., & Buckland, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 4
- Pages
- 9145-9154
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2569168369
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.