| Literature DB >> 35310199 |
Abdulrhman M Alshareef1, Raed Alsini1, Mohammed Alsieni2, Fadwa Alrowais3, Radwa Marzouk4, Ibrahim Abunadi5, Nadhem Nemri6.
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the main cause of death over the globe. Earlier detection and classification of cancer is highly important to improve patient health. Previous studies utilized statistical and machine learning (ML) techniques for prostate cancer detection. However, several challenges that exist in the investigation process are the existence of high dimensionality data and less number of training samples. Metaheuristic algorithms can be used to resolve the curse of dimensionality and improve the detection rate of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. With this motivation, this article develops an artificial intelligence based feature selection with deep learning model for prostate cancer detection (AIFSDL-PCD) using microarray gene expression data. The AIFSDL-PCD technique involves preprocessing to enhance the input data quality. In addition, a chaotic invasive weed optimization (CIWO) based feature selection (FS) technique for choosing an optimal subset of features shows the novelty of the work. Moreover, the deep neural network (DNN) model can be applied as a classification model to detect the existence of prostate cancer in the microarray gene expression data. Furthermore, the hyperparameters of the DNN model can be effectively adjusted by the use of RMSprop optimizer. The design of CIWO based FS technique helps for reducing the computational complexity and improve the classification accuracy. The experimental results highlighted the betterment of the AIFSDL-PCD approach on the other techniques with respect to distinct measures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35310199 PMCID: PMC8930217 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7364704
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Overall process of AIFSDL-PCD technique.
Figure 2DNN structure.
Result analysis of optimal DNN model
| No. of iterations | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | Accuracy |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iteration 1 | 96.30 | 95.56 | 96.67 | 96.64 | 96.32 |
| Iteration 2 | 96.20 | 96.46 | 96.57 | 96.50 | 96.97 |
| Iteration 3 | 95.82 | 96.64 | 96.55 | 95.99 | 95.95 |
| Iteration 4 | 96.13 | 96.34 | 96.15 | 96.19 | 96.19 |
| Iteration 5 | 96.25 | 95.66 | 96.75 | 96.51 | 95.63 |
| Iteration 6 | 95.59 | 95.63 | 96.55 | 95.86 | 95.53 |
| Iteration 7 | 95.92 | 96.04 | 96.11 | 95.99 | 96.04 |
| Iteration 8 | 95.56 | 96.88 | 96.34 | 95.72 | 96.43 |
| Iteration 9 | 96.17 | 95.57 | 96.53 | 96.31 | 96.27 |
| Iteration 10 | 96.44 | 96.18 | 96.15 | 96.38 | 96.05 |
| Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3Result analysis of optimal DNN technique.
Figure 4ROC analysis of optimal DNN technique.
Result analysis of proposed AIFSDL-PCD model.
| No. of iterations | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | Accuracy |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iteration 1 | 97.75 | 97.26 | 96.87 | 97.47 | 97.58 |
| Iteration 2 | 97.25 | 97.30 | 96.69 | 96.83 | 97.48 |
| Iteration 3 | 97.59 | 97.21 | 97.34 | 97.41 | 97.06 |
| Iteration 4 | 97.49 | 97.10 | 96.92 | 97.18 | 97.07 |
| Iteration 5 | 97.11 | 96.60 | 96.90 | 96.69 | 97.22 |
| Iteration 6 | 97.43 | 96.92 | 97.39 | 97.27 | 96.89 |
| Iteration 7 | 96.87 | 97.27 | 97.34 | 97.06 | 97.75 |
| Iteration 8 | 97.18 | 97.37 | 97.43 | 97.34 | 97.71 |
| Iteration 9 | 96.51 | 97.78 | 97.25 | 97.41 | 97.51 |
| Iteration 10 | 97.28 | 97.66 | 97.23 | 97.28 | 96.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5Result analysis of AIFSDL-PCD approach.
Figure 6ROC analysis of AIFSDL-PCD technique.
Figure 7Accuracy graph analysis of AIFSDL-PCD technique.
Figure 8Loss graph analysis of AIFSDL-PCD technique.
Comparative analysis of AIFSDL-PCD approach with existing techniques.
| Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| PLR-MC | 0.9460 |
| RFLD-MC | 0.9340 |
| Bio-HEL | 0.9400 |
| SVM model | 0.9120 |
| GA-KNN + SVM | 0.8571 |
| CSF-RC | 0.9510 |
| Optimal DNN | 0.9621 |
| AIFSDL-PCD | 0.9719 |
Figure 9Accuracy analysis of AIFSDL-PCD technique with existing manners.