| Literature DB >> 35879760 |
Anaram Yaghoobi Notash1,2, Aidin Yaghoobi Notash2, Zahra Omidi3, Shahpar Haghighat4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related lymphedema is one of the most important complications that adversely affect patients' quality of life. Lymphedema can be managed if its risk factors are known and can be modified. This study aimed to select an appropriate model to predict the risk of lymphedema and determine the factors affecting lymphedema.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Data mining; Ensemble learning; Feature selection; Lymphedema
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35879760 PMCID: PMC9310496 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-01937-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Matrix of solutions with feature selection
Fig. 2Optimization of the combined method of collective learning and feature extraction
Adjustment of Genetic algorithm parameters
| Parameters description | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of repeats | 100 |
| Population size | 50 |
| Percentage of the best current-generation chromosomes (PR) | 10 |
| Percentage of combination operator (PC) | 60 |
| Percentage of Mutation Operator (PM) | 30 |
| Parental selection in selection and jump operator | Roulette Wheel Selection (RWS) |
Fig. 3Flowchart of the model used
Demographic and clinical variables of patients in the study groups
| Variable | Group | |
|---|---|---|
| Without lymphedema (n = 230) | With lymphedema (n = 740) | |
| N (%) | N (%) | |
| Housewife | 168 (75.7) | 573(82) |
| Employed | 54 (24.3) | 126 (18) |
| High school diploma and lower education | 131 (58) | 499 (70.9) |
| Higher education | 95 (42) | 205 (29.1) |
| Single | 32 (13.9) | 83 (11.4) |
| Married | 192 (83.5) | 616 (84.7) |
| Divorced | 4 (1.7) | 22 (3) |
| Widow | 2 (0.9) | 6 (0.8) |
| Mastectomy | 120 (52.2) | 496 (67.9) |
| Breast preservation | 110 (47.8) | 235 (32.1) |
Evaluation of classification algorithms
| Classification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation | Confusion Matrix | Algorithm | |
| FPR = 0. 2500 | 143 | 547 | SVM (Linear) |
| FRR = 0. 2072 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 7706 | 555 | 185 | |
| Cost = 0. 2291 | |||
| FPR = 0. 1486 | 53 | 637 | SVM (RBF) |
| FRR = 0. 0768 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 8860 | 630 | 110 | |
| Cost = 0. 1135 | |||
| FPR = 0. 2365 | 22 | 668 | SVM (Polynomial) |
| FRR = 0. 3190 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 8622 | 565 | 175 | |
| Cost = 0. 1363 | |||
| FPR = 0. 2757 | 142 | 548 | LDA |
| FRR = 0. 2058 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 7580 | 536 | 204 | |
| Cost = 0. 2415 | |||
| FPR = 0. 3959 | 71 | 619 | KNN |
| FRR = 0. 1029 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 7455 | 447 | 293 | |
| Cost = 0. 2525 | |||
| FPR = 0. 4514 | 120 | 570 | Bayes |
| FRR = 0. 1739 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 6825 | 406 | 334 | |
| Cost = 0. 3155 | |||
| FPR = 0. 1622 | 138 | 552 | C5 |
| FRR = 0. 2000 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 8196 | 620 | 120 | |
| Cost = 0. 1807 | |||
| FPR = 0. 2216 | 189 | 501 | MLP |
| FRR = 0. 2739 | |||
| Accuracy = 0. 7531 | 576 | 164 | |
| Cost = 0. 2472 | |||
Fig. 4Evaluation a FPR, b FRR, c ACCURACY in classification algorithms
Evaluation of group learning method with selected algorithms and the proposed method
| Name | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| EC | FPR = 0.2500 |
| FRR = 0.1319 | |
| Accuracy = 0.8070 | |
| Cost = 0.1922 | |
| EC + EFS (GA) | FPR = 0.1297 |
| FRR = 0.0362 | |
| Accuracy = 0.9154 | |
| Cost = 0.0840 |
Fig. 5Evaluation of a FRR, b FPR, c ACCURACY in collective learning and suggested methods
Fig. 6Impact percentage of the proposed model variables in order of impact factor