Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199724›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Machine Learning Meets Meta-Heuristics: Bald Eagle Search Optimization and Red Deer Optimization for Feature Selection in Type II Diabetes Diagnosis.

Dinesh Chellappan, Harikumar Rajaguru

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Dinesh ChellappanDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore 641 407, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6955-7646
Harikumar RajaguruDepartment of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam 638 401, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2792-0945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article investigates the effectiveness of feature extraction and selection techniques in enhancing the performance of classifier accuracy in Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM) detection using microarray gene data. To address the inherent high dimensionality of the data, three feature extraction (FE) methods are used, namely Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT), Ridge Regression (RR), and Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC). To further refine the data, meta-heuristic algorithms like Bald Eagle Search Optimization (BESO) and Red Deer Optimization (RDO) are utilized for feature selection. The performance of seven classification techniques, Non-Linear Regression-NLR, Linear Regression-LR, Gaussian Mixture Models-GMMs, Expectation Maximization-EM, Logistic Regression-LoR, Softmax Discriminant Classifier-SDC, and Support Vector Machine with Radial Basis Function kernel-SVM-RBF, are evaluated with and without feature selection. The analysis reveals that the combination of PCC with SVM-RBF achieved a promising accuracy of 92.85% even without feature selection. Notably, employing BESO with PCC and SVM-RBF maintained this high accuracy. However, the highest overall accuracy of 97.14% was achieved when RDO was used for feature selection alongside PCC and SVM-RBF. These findings highlight the potential of feature extraction and selection techniques, particularly RDO with PCC, in improving the accuracy of DM detection using microarray gene data.

Indexed as

Bald Eagle Search Optimizationclassifiersdiabetes detectionfeature extractionperformance analysisRed Deer Optimization

Identifiers

PMID39199724
PMCPMC11351847

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.