The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SVM and SVM Ensembles in Breast Cancer Prediction
Open accessAbstract
Breast cancer is an all too common disease in women, making how to effectively predict it an active research problem. A number of statistical and machine learning techniques have been employed to develop various breast cancer prediction models. Among them, support vector machines (SVM) have been shown to outperform many related techniques. To construct the SVM classifier, it is first necessary to decide the kernel function, and different kernel functions can result in different prediction performance. However, there have been very few studies focused on examining the prediction performances of SVM based on different kernel functions. Moreover, it is unknown whether SVM classifier ensembles which have been proposed to improve the performance of single classifiers can outperform single SVM classifiers in terms of breast cancer prediction. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to fully assess the prediction performance of SVM and SVM ensembles over small and large scale breast cancer datasets. The classification accuracy, ROC, F-measure, and computational times of training SVM and SVM ensembles are compared. The experimental results show that linear kernel based SVM ensembles based on the bagging method and RBF kernel based SVM ensembles with the boosting method can be the better choices for a small scale dataset, where feature selection should be performed in the data pre-processing stage. For a large scale dataset, RBF kernel based SVM ensembles based on boosting perform better than the other classifiers.
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
Wu, Y. (1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485951 · Cited by 27,221
An introduction to ROC analysis
Fawcett, T. (2006) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 · Cited by 21,879
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
Kohavi, R. (1995) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19712698 · Cited by 10,909
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation
Powers, D. M. W. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.16061 · Cited by 5,440
Kittler, J., Hatef, M., Duin, R. P. W., & Matas, J. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.667881 · Cited by 5,290
The Strength of Weak Learnability
Schapire, R. E. (1990) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00116037 · Cited by 4,600
Machine Learning Applications in Cancer Prognosis and Prediction
Kourou, K., Exarchos, T. P., Exarchos, K. P., Karamouzis, M. V., & Fotiadis, D. I. (2015) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2014.11.005 · Cited by 3,338
Rokach, L. (2010) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-009-9124-7 · Cited by 2,657
Cited by
Kamel, S. R., YaghoubZadeh, R., & Kheirabadi, M. (2019) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0247-7 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, M.-W., Chen, C.-W., Lin, W.-C., Ke, S.-W., & Tsai, C.-F.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-01-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e0161501
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2569219946
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 32.37
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SVM and SVM Ensembles in Breast Cancer Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0161501
- The paper
- Huang, M.-W., Chen, C.-W., Lin, W.-C., Ke, S.-W., & Tsai, C.-F. (2017). SVM and SVM Ensembles in Breast Cancer Prediction. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161501
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.